What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.
I’d posit that Apple has already “grafted a touch interface onto OS X”. Have you used a Magic Trackpad or a recent MacBook with the latest iterations of OSX? Both emotionally and psychologically, the lines are blurring between how I operate my laptop when I’m using the trackpad and how I interact with my iOS devices. With the exception of how I position them, the usage contexts, and typing on physical keys, the experiences are already becoming much converged…
Because it has been steady and incremental, it’s easy to miss sometimes.
One simple example: “swiping” as a replacement for the “back/forward” buttons in a browser… it works the same way in both iOS and OSX if you’re using a trackpad. There are many, many such examples.
I think the advanced, multi-touch trackpad IS the logical alternative to a touchscreen “PC”… again, I just don’t want to constantly need to deal with fingerprints on a screen any larger than my iPad, and I certainly don’t want to exhaust my arms daily trying to emulate the Minority Report for hours at a time.
Apple is clearly charting the best and most obvious course from a usability perspective.
There is no reality that states "4K content is at 40-60GB." Content simply doesn't work that way. There are multiple factors that are making Sony's content that size, assuming the statement of a low end of 40GB and high end of 60GB are accurate.
You have to consider the codec (which you have), the codec profile utilized, the length of the video, as well as the audio file size, and other options and features that make up the contents in the container.
I would wager Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual (and perhaps audio) experience for those who have the money to buy their 4K HDTVs. That means you can expect the profile to be much higher than you would expect for Netflix, ITS, Amazon or YouTube for a given pixel's worth of data.
The only truth is that 4x as many pixels does not mean files will need to be 20-30x larger for a given duration and per-pixel quality.
True, maybe Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual. But come to think about it, the large files could be the result of insufficient processing power that would be required to decompress the codec, had it been compressed at the same settings as 1080p.
Talk about disengenuous misdirection. This is an article about display resolutions where you are now trying to weasel your way out with comment about Sony and 4K downloads. These are not tied together. There is no 2048x1536 or 2880x1800 from the iTunes Store just because Apple uses this on their iPad and MBP, respectively.
But let me get back to your original foolish comment. You stated t's pointless to have pixel densities the eyes couldn't resolve. If you keep the pixel densities where the eyes can still resolve the individual pixels then the displays are not Retina by Apple's standards (assuming you aren't less than 1% of the population with exceptionally good eyesight for the minimal level that qualifies as Retina). Perhaps you meant that it's foolish to continue quadrupling the number of the pixels once you achieve Retina quality but you neither stated in that in your original comment nor corrected yourself in your reply to me despite me giving you an out.
You complaining about comically bulging hard drives despite it having nothing to do with how an OS will handle a denser display panel and you complained about how much Apple charges. It sure doesn't sound like you're a fan, and DaHarder-ing a post claiming what you own doesn't help your position.
PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.
In what way are the display resolution and storage requirements not correlated? The entire raison d'être of 4K - and thus the entire reason for having 4K displays in the first place - is to display 4K content - which isn't about displaying every pixel of an 8 Mb still photos at 1:1 - it's about dynamic media - which requires very large amounts of storage. Which was the basis for my comments.
You criticised my reasoning by referencing a hypothetical future and technologies that are not currently implemented. As a method of argument that is thoroughly disingenuous. TS did the same by invoking vector graphics based video compression which is still so tentative it appears in academic journals and is quite thoroughly irrelevant in the context of the article which is about a hypothetical product to be available in 2014.
It's all well and good to claim your pie-in-the-sky tastes superior, but the only ones any of us can actually buy and eat are those actually in the shops - or in this case those likely to be in 2014.
You are really splitting hairs about my resolution comment. Several other people seemed to have no difficulty in parsing my meaning. My wording was inexact, so apologies for that. What I said was:
Quote:
Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve
I shall insert a word for those who demand utter verbal precision: Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities much beyond your eyes being able to resolve.
Do I have to define 'much' in order to avoid further recursive logic chopping?
Oh, and while we are on the topic of my atrocious written imprecision:
Quote:
PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.
Cough!
Why must you invoke an emotive word like 'hater' because I made a negative reference to Apple's pricing of memory? Why shouldn't I criticise it? Is my criticism unfair? I am a consumer of Apple products, not a shareholder. They have $150 Billion in cash they don't know how to spend and yet their memory pricing is still what might validly be described as gouging.
Where I live, the difference in price between the 16 and 32 GB iPad min Retina is €90. The difference in price between the Nexus 7 16 and 32 Gb versions is €25. Then we have the iPhone 5s - €230 difference between the 16 and 32 Gb versions. The difference in price between the 16 and 32 Gb Nexus 5 is €72.
So, given the extreme premium Apple charges for memory in iOS devices, I don't think it is unwarranted to make reference to this when the topic is hypothetical iOS devices designed to display memory intensive 4K content.
In what way are the display resolution and storage requirements not correlated? The entire raison d'être of 4K - and thus the entire reason for having 4K displays in the first place - is to display 4K content - which isn't about displaying every pixel of an 8 Mb still photos at 1:1 - it's about dynamic media - which requires very large amounts of storage. Which was the basis for my comments.
You criticised my reasoning by referencing a hypothetical future and technologies that are not currently implemented. As a method of argument that is thoroughly disingenuous. TS did the same by invoking vector graphics based video compression which is still so tentative it appears in academic journals and is quite thoroughly irrelevant in the context of the article which is about a hypothetical product to be available in 2014.
It's all well and good to claim your pie-in-the-sky tastes superior, but the only ones any of us can actually buy and eat are those actually in the shops - or in this case those likely to be in 2014.
You are really splitting hairs about my resolution comment. Several other people seemed to have no difficulty in parsing my meaning. My wording was inexact, so apologies for that. What I said was:
I shall insert a word for those who demand utter verbal precision: Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities much beyond your eyes being able to resolve.
Do I have to define 'much' in order to avoid further recursive logic chopping?
Oh, and while we are on the topic of my atrocious written imprecision:
Cough!
Why must you invoke an emotive word like 'hater' because I made a negative reference to Apple's pricing of memory? Why shouldn't I criticise it? Is my criticism unfair? I am a consumer of Apple products, not a shareholder. They have $150 Billion in cash they don't know how to spend and yet their memory pricing is still what might validly be described as gouging.
Where I live, the difference in price between the 16 and 32 GB iPad min Retina is €90. The difference in price between the Nexus 7 16 and 32 Gb versions is €25. Then we have the iPhone 5s - €230 difference between the 16 and 32 Gb versions. The difference in price between the 16 and 32 Gb Nexus 5 is €72.
So, given the extreme premium Apple charges for memory in iOS devices, I don't think it is unwarranted to make reference to this when the topic is hypothetical iOS devices designed to display memory intensive 4K content.
1) If there is some 1:1 relation between a display's resolution and the content of video that has to be played on it then where is there no 2048x1536 content on the iTS or any of the other resolution video that Apple uses across their devices? This is really fucking simple! The resolution of a display is independent of the content that will play upon it. This is why under specs there is a listing for the display and then another listing for what videos at different profiles and codecs can play on the device. It's why the 2.1MM pixels of 1080p can play on both the Retina iPad and iPhone 5S despite them being very far from the number of pixels in 1080p in different directions.
2) I didn't criticized your reasoning; I tore it apart. You may have meant that once you achieve Retina quality that it's pointless to keep making it more Retinay but that isn't what you wrote. You want a pass but that wouldn't that be hypocritical since I see you constantly jumping on TS for any comment he makes that isn't fully qualified?
I think the pixel density of a 12.9" screen would be close to the iPad Air density. It would be able to run old iPad apps at native resolution with the remaining screen to support multi-tasking or scaled up to full size. All iPad apps would have support the larger screen within a year. I really think this iPad Pro would be designed to further kill off the laptop PC.
To do that, it should have these upgrades: faster A7 processor with upgraded graphics, a real file system with a simple version of the Mac finder, support USB 3.0 through the lightning port, support for PC-like file transfer, an SD card slot, real multi-tasking with at least 2 gB of RAM (preferably 4), an optional high quality keyboard, possibly with a touch pad, and upgraded Apple productivity apps.
It should weigh less than 1.6 lbs or 2.5 lbs with the keyboard/touchpad. Without the keyboard/touch pad, it should cost less than $800 for a base 32 gB system and less than $1000 with keyboard/touchpad or $900 if no touchpad. All the added complexity could be hidden for users that don't need it. If Microsoft makes Office available, this could really be the system that Surface was supposed to be.
True, maybe Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual. But come to think about it, the large files could be the result of insufficient processing power that would be required to decompress the codec, had it been compressed at the same settings as 1080p.
That sounds reasonable to me. Just because H.264 can handle 4K doesn't mean there is HW is really up to the challenge. It's not the frames per second for the decoder but the RAM, and throughput of the other HW that needs to be in place. Wasn't Sony shipping some auxiliary device with pre-loaded movies on it for their 4K HDTVs or am I thinking of something from years ago before Blu-ray was commonplace?
Even now on the latest MBPs there is no official 4K support despite it having TB2. The HDMI 1.4 port can handle 4K but only at 30Hz which isn't good enough for me. HDMI 2.0 spec was finalized this past September to offer 4K at 60Hz but when you consider that HDMi 1.4 was finalized in May 2009 it doesn't seem like HDMI 2.0 will make its way into products anytime soon. But I don't think that matters much since we still don't have a H.265 decoder in anything but a smattering of devices. The Samsung Galaxy S4 has an. H.265 decoder but I've read anything about how good it is. When Apple adopts it (I expect next year) it will likely mean that the decoder is finally power efficient enough and I think will mean we'll see a huge flush of devices followed by content hit the market. First with YouTube and other free uploads and then with larger and costlier file types. I would expect that we may even see Blu-ray players and studios get on board with 4K content within a couple years after that threshold is achieved.
The Mac Pro supports 3 x 4K screens, but Apple don't sell a display to go with it, yet...
4K screens are in the wild, the Sony X9 is better than awesome.
4K movies are on Blu-Ray or Ultraviolet, but how much 4K content is actually out there, shot with 4K cameras, not much.
There's no Apple TV, yet.... could there be no Apple TV yet because:
1. It will be 4K
2. There's not enough content
2a. Or perhaps broadcast infrastructure to deliver 4K (not sure about this but in the UK satellite boxes are HD 1080p)
3. The market is simply not quite ready
4. It wouldn't be the first time Apple developed a product and sat on it until everything was nailed down and just right and that could be ANY part of the technology stack from batteries, processors, displays, software etc etc. etc.
Apple is often in the first wave of technology adoption but all the logistical, technical and market problems have to be addressed first......
There's lots of mileage in the combo Air / iPad concept, I hadn't thought of it, but ergonomically touch doesn't work except when nearly horizontal, its how our fingers work, we don't use the fingertip to point and scroll, we use the pad of the finger where there are more sensitive touch nerves. Which is could explain why Surface devices are a failure [lots of other reasons too, but if the ergonomics are wrong, nothing 'feels right' - something Apple excel at]
The Mac Pro supports 3 x 4K screens, but Apple don't sell a display to go with it, yet...
4K screens are in the wild, the Sony X9 is better than awesome.
4K movies are on Blu-Ray or Ultraviolet, but how much 4K content is actually out there, shot with 4K cameras, not much.
There's no Apple TV, yet.... could there be no Apple TV yet because:
1. It will be 4K
2. There's not enough content
2a. Or perhaps broadcast infrastructure to deliver 4K (not sure about this but in the UK satellite boxes are HD 1080p)
3. The market is simply not quite ready
4. It wouldn't be the first time Apple developed a product and sat on it until everything was nailed down and just right and that could be ANY part of the technology stack from batteries, processors, displays, software etc etc. etc.
Apple is often in the first wave of technology adoption but all the logistical, technical and market problems have to be addressed first......
There's lots of mileage in the combo Air / iPad concept, I hadn't thought of it, but ergonomically touch doesn't work except when nearly horizontal, its how our fingers work, we don't use the fingertip to point and scroll, we use the pad of the finger where there are more sensitive touch nerves. Which is could explain why Surface devices are a failure [lots of other reasons too, but if the ergonomics are wrong, nothing 'feels right' - something Apple excel at]
I assumed the 4K capability in the MacPro is targeted towards video professionals who may need the peace of mind knowing the editing capability is there should they need it.
Comments
I’d posit that Apple has already “grafted a touch interface onto OS X”. Have you used a Magic Trackpad or a recent MacBook with the latest iterations of OSX? Both emotionally and psychologically, the lines are blurring between how I operate my laptop when I’m using the trackpad and how I interact with my iOS devices. With the exception of how I position them, the usage contexts, and typing on physical keys, the experiences are already becoming much converged…
Because it has been steady and incremental, it’s easy to miss sometimes.
One simple example: “swiping” as a replacement for the “back/forward” buttons in a browser… it works the same way in both iOS and OSX if you’re using a trackpad. There are many, many such examples.
I think the advanced, multi-touch trackpad IS the logical alternative to a touchscreen “PC”… again, I just don’t want to constantly need to deal with fingerprints on a screen any larger than my iPad, and I certainly don’t want to exhaust my arms daily trying to emulate the Minority Report for hours at a time.
Apple is clearly charting the best and most obvious course from a usability perspective.
There is no reality that states "4K content is at 40-60GB." Content simply doesn't work that way. There are multiple factors that are making Sony's content that size, assuming the statement of a low end of 40GB and high end of 60GB are accurate.
You have to consider the codec (which you have), the codec profile utilized, the length of the video, as well as the audio file size, and other options and features that make up the contents in the container.
I would wager Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual (and perhaps audio) experience for those who have the money to buy their 4K HDTVs. That means you can expect the profile to be much higher than you would expect for Netflix, ITS, Amazon or YouTube for a given pixel's worth of data.
The only truth is that 4x as many pixels does not mean files will need to be 20-30x larger for a given duration and per-pixel quality.
True, maybe Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual. But come to think about it, the large files could be the result of insufficient processing power that would be required to decompress the codec, had it been compressed at the same settings as 1080p.
Talk about disengenuous misdirection. This is an article about display resolutions where you are now trying to weasel your way out with comment about Sony and 4K downloads. These are not tied together. There is no 2048x1536 or 2880x1800 from the iTunes Store just because Apple uses this on their iPad and MBP, respectively.
But let me get back to your original foolish comment. You stated t's pointless to have pixel densities the eyes couldn't resolve. If you keep the pixel densities where the eyes can still resolve the individual pixels then the displays are not Retina by Apple's standards (assuming you aren't less than 1% of the population with exceptionally good eyesight for the minimal level that qualifies as Retina). Perhaps you meant that it's foolish to continue quadrupling the number of the pixels once you achieve Retina quality but you neither stated in that in your original comment nor corrected yourself in your reply to me despite me giving you an out.
You complaining about comically bulging hard drives despite it having nothing to do with how an OS will handle a denser display panel and you complained about how much Apple charges. It sure doesn't sound like you're a fan, and DaHarder-ing a post claiming what you own doesn't help your position.
PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.
In what way are the display resolution and storage requirements not correlated? The entire raison d'être of 4K - and thus the entire reason for having 4K displays in the first place - is to display 4K content - which isn't about displaying every pixel of an 8 Mb still photos at 1:1 - it's about dynamic media - which requires very large amounts of storage. Which was the basis for my comments.
You criticised my reasoning by referencing a hypothetical future and technologies that are not currently implemented. As a method of argument that is thoroughly disingenuous. TS did the same by invoking vector graphics based video compression which is still so tentative it appears in academic journals and is quite thoroughly irrelevant in the context of the article which is about a hypothetical product to be available in 2014.
It's all well and good to claim your pie-in-the-sky tastes superior, but the only ones any of us can actually buy and eat are those actually in the shops - or in this case those likely to be in 2014.
You are really splitting hairs about my resolution comment. Several other people seemed to have no difficulty in parsing my meaning. My wording was inexact, so apologies for that. What I said was:
I shall insert a word for those who demand utter verbal precision: Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities much beyond your eyes being able to resolve.
Do I have to define 'much' in order to avoid further recursive logic chopping?
Oh, and while we are on the topic of my atrocious written imprecision:
Cough!
Why must you invoke an emotive word like 'hater' because I made a negative reference to Apple's pricing of memory? Why shouldn't I criticise it? Is my criticism unfair? I am a consumer of Apple products, not a shareholder. They have $150 Billion in cash they don't know how to spend and yet their memory pricing is still what might validly be described as gouging.
Where I live, the difference in price between the 16 and 32 GB iPad min Retina is €90. The difference in price between the Nexus 7 16 and 32 Gb versions is €25. Then we have the iPhone 5s - €230 difference between the 16 and 32 Gb versions. The difference in price between the 16 and 32 Gb Nexus 5 is €72.
So, given the extreme premium Apple charges for memory in iOS devices, I don't think it is unwarranted to make reference to this when the topic is hypothetical iOS devices designed to display memory intensive 4K content.
1) If there is some 1:1 relation between a display's resolution and the content of video that has to be played on it then where is there no 2048x1536 content on the iTS or any of the other resolution video that Apple uses across their devices? This is really fucking simple! The resolution of a display is independent of the content that will play upon it. This is why under specs there is a listing for the display and then another listing for what videos at different profiles and codecs can play on the device. It's why the 2.1MM pixels of 1080p can play on both the Retina iPad and iPhone 5S despite them being very far from the number of pixels in 1080p in different directions.
2) I didn't criticized your reasoning; I tore it apart. You may have meant that once you achieve Retina quality that it's pointless to keep making it more Retinay but that isn't what you wrote. You want a pass but that wouldn't that be hypocritical since I see you constantly jumping on TS for any comment he makes that isn't fully qualified?
To do that, it should have these upgrades: faster A7 processor with upgraded graphics, a real file system with a simple version of the Mac finder, support USB 3.0 through the lightning port, support for PC-like file transfer, an SD card slot, real multi-tasking with at least 2 gB of RAM (preferably 4), an optional high quality keyboard, possibly with a touch pad, and upgraded Apple productivity apps.
It should weigh less than 1.6 lbs or 2.5 lbs with the keyboard/touchpad. Without the keyboard/touch pad, it should cost less than $800 for a base 32 gB system and less than $1000 with keyboard/touchpad or $900 if no touchpad. All the added complexity could be hidden for users that don't need it. If Microsoft makes Office available, this could really be the system that Surface was supposed to be.
That sounds reasonable to me. Just because H.264 can handle 4K doesn't mean there is HW is really up to the challenge. It's not the frames per second for the decoder but the RAM, and throughput of the other HW that needs to be in place. Wasn't Sony shipping some auxiliary device with pre-loaded movies on it for their 4K HDTVs or am I thinking of something from years ago before Blu-ray was commonplace?
Even now on the latest MBPs there is no official 4K support despite it having TB2. The HDMI 1.4 port can handle 4K but only at 30Hz which isn't good enough for me. HDMI 2.0 spec was finalized this past September to offer 4K at 60Hz but when you consider that HDMi 1.4 was finalized in May 2009 it doesn't seem like HDMI 2.0 will make its way into products anytime soon. But I don't think that matters much since we still don't have a H.265 decoder in anything but a smattering of devices. The Samsung Galaxy S4 has an. H.265 decoder but I've read anything about how good it is. When Apple adopts it (I expect next year) it will likely mean that the decoder is finally power efficient enough and I think will mean we'll see a huge flush of devices followed by content hit the market. First with YouTube and other free uploads and then with larger and costlier file types. I would expect that we may even see Blu-ray players and studios get on board with 4K content within a couple years after that threshold is achieved.
Its all got a bit emotional hasn't it?
The Mac Pro supports 3 x 4K screens, but Apple don't sell a display to go with it, yet...
4K screens are in the wild, the Sony X9 is better than awesome.
4K movies are on Blu-Ray or Ultraviolet, but how much 4K content is actually out there, shot with 4K cameras, not much.
There's no Apple TV, yet.... could there be no Apple TV yet because:
1. It will be 4K
2. There's not enough content
2a. Or perhaps broadcast infrastructure to deliver 4K (not sure about this but in the UK satellite boxes are HD 1080p)
3. The market is simply not quite ready
4. It wouldn't be the first time Apple developed a product and sat on it until everything was nailed down and just right and that could be ANY part of the technology stack from batteries, processors, displays, software etc etc. etc.
Apple is often in the first wave of technology adoption but all the logistical, technical and market problems have to be addressed first......
There's lots of mileage in the combo Air / iPad concept, I hadn't thought of it, but ergonomically touch doesn't work except when nearly horizontal, its how our fingers work, we don't use the fingertip to point and scroll, we use the pad of the finger where there are more sensitive touch nerves. Which is could explain why Surface devices are a failure [lots of other reasons too, but if the ergonomics are wrong, nothing 'feels right' - something Apple excel at]
Its all got a bit emotional hasn't it?
The Mac Pro supports 3 x 4K screens, but Apple don't sell a display to go with it, yet...
4K screens are in the wild, the Sony X9 is better than awesome.
4K movies are on Blu-Ray or Ultraviolet, but how much 4K content is actually out there, shot with 4K cameras, not much.
There's no Apple TV, yet.... could there be no Apple TV yet because:
1. It will be 4K
2. There's not enough content
2a. Or perhaps broadcast infrastructure to deliver 4K (not sure about this but in the UK satellite boxes are HD 1080p)
3. The market is simply not quite ready
4. It wouldn't be the first time Apple developed a product and sat on it until everything was nailed down and just right and that could be ANY part of the technology stack from batteries, processors, displays, software etc etc. etc.
Apple is often in the first wave of technology adoption but all the logistical, technical and market problems have to be addressed first......
There's lots of mileage in the combo Air / iPad concept, I hadn't thought of it, but ergonomically touch doesn't work except when nearly horizontal, its how our fingers work, we don't use the fingertip to point and scroll, we use the pad of the finger where there are more sensitive touch nerves. Which is could explain why Surface devices are a failure [lots of other reasons too, but if the ergonomics are wrong, nothing 'feels right' - something Apple excel at]
I assumed the 4K capability in the MacPro is targeted towards video professionals who may need the peace of mind knowing the editing capability is there should they need it.
Larger screen, UHD resolution, 4K output capability.