why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
Streaming. Yeah.
4K streaming is practically non-existent for the vast majority of the population because of the bandwidth required. I was just looking at a chart that showed that 82% of the U.S. has either 1 or 0 providers at 25Mbps. And that is the absolute minimum for streaming 4K. And do you really think that the Comcasts and ATTs of the world are going to, what? Just let people stream 4K content to their heart's content? Get ready to pay some SERIOUS cap-overage charges.
And 4K Blu-Ray will never really happen in any significant way. Blu-Ray itself has been around for a decade, more or less, and DVD still dominates physical media sales.
And as I said before, until you can get a 50TB SSD for something resembling a reasonable price, forget about storing any of this 4K content. The Blu-Ray for The Social Network for instance takes up over 30GB just for the feature. And that's just a regular old Blu-Ray. Now imagine what that would be at 4K.
The Blu-Ray for The Social Network for instance takes up over 30GB just for the feature. And that's just a regular old Blu-Ray. Now imagine what that would be at 4K.
With Blu-ray you're talking lossless quality 1080p. 1080p over the Internet uses lossy compression but needs only 5 Mbps. 4K over the Internet will need 20 Mbps, which is within many people's service level.
Youtube has several 4k demo videos, of varying quality. Try them out at your local computer store where a 4K monitor is available. The good ones look a whole lot better than 1080p.
I'm not talking about 'people'. I'm speaking about the world's foremost TV experts. I've watch discussions about this subject on Youtube. I own a 9th gen Kuro. This is not simply something I came up with myself. It's why Retina displays are good enough, they surpass the eye's power at a regular viewing distance. A distance which changes depending on screen size and device use-case. This is the case for TVs too. You don't have a hope of seeing the pixels on a 60" 1080p TV from 10' away. Not unless you have tights, a cape and were born under a red star.
The $99 AppleTV was a hobby. The new AppleTV is not.
Nothing has come out that is even close to what the new AppleTV is.
I have a feeling they will change the name to avoid confusion.
I think something like AppleHome? Here are some of the features:
1. Replace you HD-DVR
2. Gaming system with real game pads (sold seperately) or iPad/iPhone control
3. Home server for music/movies
4. Full Apps. Control with AppleWatch. Control lights, AC, ect.
5. Siri control
Awesome.
I agree. I don't think Apple New TV will be a lot more advance compared to version 3. It may just a damn central hub to be used for other purpose too. Close to $199 is the price I predict even tho I hope it's around $149.
I think with this, Apple will crush them all, seriously.
With Blu-ray you're talking lossless quality 1080p. 1080p over the Internet uses lossy compression but needs only 5 Mbps. 4K over the Internet will need 20 Mbps, which is within many people's service level.
Youtube has several 4k demo videos, of varying quality. Try them out at your local computer store where a 4K monitor is available. The good ones look a whole lot better than 1080p.
According to Netflix, you need a minimum of 25Mbps. Minimum.
And the question remains: Do you really believe that Comcast, for example, is going to allow you to stream 100s of GBs of data per month without charging you extra?
I disagree. If this can replace your cable DVR it will pay for itself in less than a year. Plus it can be a legit gaming hub and app machine monster. With enough on board storage + cloud it can also be a decent home server.
Can't wait to see the possible apps with AppleTV + AppleWatch + Homekit. Wow.
This is exactly what i predicted last year
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, sog. I would love to see the same thing, but it will be a marketing challenge, given that the market is accustomed to cheaper prices.
Finally, one box to rule them all: AppleHUB. With this new box and TV programs, Let's see cable TV die. BTW, current streaming boxes from others are just a joke.
Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
4k is also relevant in PC monitors, you get retina on PC's at 4k resolution.
4k is getting available on low price cameras and on high end smartphones, which put it in the hands of consumers.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
Broadcast TV does matter if Apple plans on offering a TV service like the rumors suggest. I know there is 4K content out there now, but it's on a limited amount of devices. I know it will grow over time like 3D, but 4K won't become the standard like 720/1080 has. Another huge factor is bandwidth. People don't have unlimited internet usage at home through companies like Comcast or Time Warner. 4K won't be any different than 3D is now. Yes, it's available but it won't become standard.
People crack me up handing out the "pro" designation. Jesus why can't just be Apple TV 4. The only thing Apple has designated pro has been laptops and desktops. Never a phone or a tablet or iPod.
But they are not going to put an A8, new GPUS, and higher storage into a $69 device. So they either get rid of that or create a pro version.
I didn't mean that it wouldn't happen technologically. Obviously, that's not true.
I meant that I don't ever see it taking off. Heck, most physical media sales today are STILL DVD. People haven't even decided that Blu-Ray is the way to go. The fact is, most people just don't notice or care about these things, and aren't willing to spend any money to "upgrade." Not to mention that the percentage of people who have: A UHD capable device, a 25Mbps+ Internet connection, and even know what 4K is is pretty damned small.
And I really hope that those who do choose to upgrade don't have data caps.
This will sound out of date in 5 years. Whether Apple produce a TV or not the very fact they will be emphasising 4k will help manufacturers build more TVs and IP providers to upsell more bandwidth. I have 10mbs at the moment. Suits my purposes until I visit somebody with a 60" 4K TV and 100Mbs connection vending his Apple TV content in two years and, prices dropping in all these cases because of higher volumes, I also buy these devices and services.
I like AppleHub as the new name. or AppleHome. Or AppleHomeHub.
Can't just call it AppleTV because its much, much, much more than just TV.
Just as iPhones are much, much, much more than phones and AppleWatches will be much, much, much more than watches. Methinks your argument doesn't close the logic loop, even though your conclusion may ultimately prove true.
According to Netflix, you need a minimum of 25Mbps. Minimum.
And the question remains: Do you really believe that Comcast, for example, is going to allow you to stream 100s of GBs of data per month without charging you extra?
That 25 Mbps is to ensure a steady stream at 20 Mbps.
20 Mbps for 2 hours is 18 GB, not 30 GB.
As 4K becomes more the norm, the cost of delivering 4k service will be factored into everyone's bill. (My service provider allows up to 500 GB per month without complaint, which is almost 2 hours of 4k video per day.)
In other words, if We the People use it, we'll get it.
Comments
I'm thinking they're constrained because of competition; my guess would be in the ballpark of $139 or less.
Who/what would be the competition for this type of a device, if it ends up having all the rumored functionality?
I think there's a big chance it'll be named the ? Hub if they don't go with Apple TV 4.
Nah it'll be called ?TV and the old model will be killed off as inventory dries up.
I'm thinking they're constrained because of competition; my guess would be in the ballpark of $139 or less.
The 16 GB model will start at $99, the 64 $199, the 128 GB $299.
The current 8 GB model (yes it is 8 GB) currently shops for $69 but has just 3 Litres of air in the tank.
That name is already taken.
why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
Streaming. Yeah.
4K streaming is practically non-existent for the vast majority of the population because of the bandwidth required. I was just looking at a chart that showed that 82% of the U.S. has either 1 or 0 providers at 25Mbps. And that is the absolute minimum for streaming 4K. And do you really think that the Comcasts and ATTs of the world are going to, what? Just let people stream 4K content to their heart's content? Get ready to pay some SERIOUS cap-overage charges.
And 4K Blu-Ray will never really happen in any significant way. Blu-Ray itself has been around for a decade, more or less, and DVD still dominates physical media sales.
And as I said before, until you can get a 50TB SSD for something resembling a reasonable price, forget about storing any of this 4K content. The Blu-Ray for The Social Network for instance takes up over 30GB just for the feature. And that's just a regular old Blu-Ray. Now imagine what that would be at 4K.
All @Watch models -- Sport, ' ', and Edition -- will control the existing @TV (and I assume, the new one -- if that were in the cards).
Really, we won't have to spend $17,000.00 for a TV remote? Only $349.00 minimum. Or $399.00 if you have reduced eyesight. Such a deal!
The Blu-Ray for The Social Network for instance takes up over 30GB just for the feature. And that's just a regular old Blu-Ray. Now imagine what that would be at 4K.
With Blu-ray you're talking lossless quality 1080p. 1080p over the Internet uses lossy compression but needs only 5 Mbps. 4K over the Internet will need 20 Mbps, which is within many people's service level.
Youtube has several 4k demo videos, of varying quality. Try them out at your local computer store where a 4K monitor is available. The good ones look a whole lot better than 1080p.
People said the same thing about 720p vs 1080p.
No difference.
Except there is a HUGE difference.
I'm not talking about 'people'. I'm speaking about the world's foremost TV experts. I've watch discussions about this subject on Youtube. I own a 9th gen Kuro. This is not simply something I came up with myself. It's why Retina displays are good enough, they surpass the eye's power at a regular viewing distance. A distance which changes depending on screen size and device use-case. This is the case for TVs too. You don't have a hope of seeing the pixels on a 60" 1080p TV from 10' away. Not unless you have tights, a cape and were born under a red star.
The $99 AppleTV was a hobby. The new AppleTV is not.
Nothing has come out that is even close to what the new AppleTV is.
I have a feeling they will change the name to avoid confusion.
I think something like AppleHome? Here are some of the features:
1. Replace you HD-DVR
2. Gaming system with real game pads (sold seperately) or iPad/iPhone control
3. Home server for music/movies
4. Full Apps. Control with AppleWatch. Control lights, AC, ect.
5. Siri control
Awesome.
I agree. I don't think Apple New TV will be a lot more advance compared to version 3. It may just a damn central hub to be used for other purpose too. Close to $199 is the price I predict even tho I hope it's around $149.
I think with this, Apple will crush them all, seriously.
With Blu-ray you're talking lossless quality 1080p. 1080p over the Internet uses lossy compression but needs only 5 Mbps. 4K over the Internet will need 20 Mbps, which is within many people's service level.
Youtube has several 4k demo videos, of varying quality. Try them out at your local computer store where a 4K monitor is available. The good ones look a whole lot better than 1080p.
According to Netflix, you need a minimum of 25Mbps. Minimum.
And the question remains: Do you really believe that Comcast, for example, is going to allow you to stream 100s of GBs of data per month without charging you extra?
Yep, I resisted buying a another one for the same reason.
I disagree. If this can replace your cable DVR it will pay for itself in less than a year. Plus it can be a legit gaming hub and app machine monster. With enough on board storage + cloud it can also be a decent home server.
Can't wait to see the possible apps with AppleTV + AppleWatch + Homekit. Wow.
This is exactly what i predicted last year
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, sog. I would love to see the same thing, but it will be a marketing challenge, given that the market is accustomed to cheaper prices.
Finally, one box to rule them all: AppleHUB. With this new box and TV programs, Let's see cable TV die. BTW, current streaming boxes from others are just a joke.
Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
4k is also relevant in PC monitors, you get retina on PC's at 4k resolution.
4k is getting available on low price cameras and on high end smartphones, which put it in the hands of consumers.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
Broadcast TV does matter if Apple plans on offering a TV service like the rumors suggest. I know there is 4K content out there now, but it's on a limited amount of devices. I know it will grow over time like 3D, but 4K won't become the standard like 720/1080 has. Another huge factor is bandwidth. People don't have unlimited internet usage at home through companies like Comcast or Time Warner. 4K won't be any different than 3D is now. Yes, it's available but it won't become standard.
But they are not going to put an A8, new GPUS, and higher storage into a $69 device. So they either get rid of that or create a pro version.
This will sound out of date in 5 years. Whether Apple produce a TV or not the very fact they will be emphasising 4k will help manufacturers build more TVs and IP providers to upsell more bandwidth. I have 10mbs at the moment. Suits my purposes until I visit somebody with a 60" 4K TV and 100Mbs connection vending his Apple TV content in two years and, prices dropping in all these cases because of higher volumes, I also buy these devices and services.
Really, we won't have to spend $17,000.00 for a TV remote? Only $349.00 minimum. Or $399.00 if you have reduced eyesight. Such a deal!
Take your silly post elsewhere.
Or bother to look up https://www.apple.com/watch/built-in-apps/ and take it from there, before spouting off...
I like AppleHub as the new name. or AppleHome. Or AppleHomeHub.
Can't just call it AppleTV because its much, much, much more than just TV.
Just as iPhones are much, much, much more than phones and AppleWatches will be much, much, much more than watches. Methinks your argument doesn't close the logic loop, even though your conclusion may ultimately prove true.
According to Netflix, you need a minimum of 25Mbps. Minimum.
And the question remains: Do you really believe that Comcast, for example, is going to allow you to stream 100s of GBs of data per month without charging you extra?
That 25 Mbps is to ensure a steady stream at 20 Mbps.
20 Mbps for 2 hours is 18 GB, not 30 GB.
As 4K becomes more the norm, the cost of delivering 4k service will be factored into everyone's bill. (My service provider allows up to 500 GB per month without complaint, which is almost 2 hours of 4k video per day.)
In other words, if We the People use it, we'll get it.
Take your silly post elsewhere.
Or bother to look up https://www.apple.com/watch/built-in-apps/ and take it from there, before spouting off...
You, sir, lack a sense of humor. I probably know more about the Apple Watch than you do about your navel.
You, sir, lack a sense of humor. I probably know more about the Apple Watch than you do about your navel.
Your humor did not come through.
But I am amazed that you know about how much my navel matters to me....