Personally, I've always felt it's a bit dishonest for manufacturers to distract you with cheap prices for its products it offers in one hand, while the other hand slyly and silently reaches around to your back pocket and removes money from your wallet, which is how it makes its profit for the (cheap) device(s) holding your attention.
No different than any loss leader in physical retail or Black Friday sales when people are willing to crash through glass doors and trample their fellow man in order to score a cheap TV, game machine or DVD player. They get you into the store with those sales so that you'll buy something else they can make some money on. Funny how there's more profit in selling you 32 rolls of toilet paper than selling you an electronic device.
If you actually want 4K, need to wait for Ultra Blu-Ray to be released.
While I agree with you, almost no one on here cares about physical media. That was made very clear to me when I would argue that Apple should stop obsessing about thinness and keep an optical drive in the MBP line. And seeing that Blu-ray (in the U.S.) has only a 21% physical market share (and the physical market itself is down over 15% this year), UHD Blu-ray is going to be a niche of a niche. Besides, unless one has projection TV or sits two feet or less from their TV screen, most consumers cannot perceive the improvement that 4K provides (it probably would be perceivable on a computer screen since we sit so close). What we can perceive easier is wider color gamut and HDR.
except they don't make profit on purchased made in the store either. Amazon makes ZERO profit.
The only division that makes any profit is cloud services.
Funny how Wall Street doesn't seem to care. The crime is the number of independent businesses and physical chains who have gone out of business because of Amazon, all so Amazon could make zero profit. And yet, at least for the products I track, I see Amazon's prices constantly trending up. As they put more and more other businesses under, I think Amazon will eventually come in for the kill and charge list or close to it for everything. Even in NYC, it's getting pretty hard to find a physical bookstore. Barnes & Noble is closing all three stores in Queens, NY soon. One is being replaced by a "mini-Target". Ugh.
The same reason why Apple didn't support 3G at first or LTE in their phones. There's just not enough content or 4K watchers out there right now. There might be 1-2 years from now but. The only reason for Apple to support 4k is when their entire iTunes catalog goes over to 4k. Anything before that represents a very small number of users.
The iphone is shooting in 4k for crying out loud... its just a plain stupid decision, especially since the hardware can play 4k.
just curious how will you play your 4k home video?
will you stream it on your home network from a server? Is your home net work fast enough to stream true 4k video?
I put them on a USB card and play it on the TV that way. Sucks really.
Ridiculous. While the Tablets may be able to process a Dolby Atmos signal, for proper Dolby Atmos playback, one needs a minimum of 7 properly placed speakers (Left-Center-Right, Left Surround, Right Surround, Left Front Height, Right Front Height) and most starting configurations need 9, (addition of Left Side or Rear Height and Right Side or Rear Height) not including a subwoofer, with typical configurations being 7.1.4 (L-C-R, LSurr, RSurr, LRearSurr, RRearSurr; Subwoofer, 4 height). A typical Dolby Atmos movie theatre has 32 to 64 channels. The whole point of Dolby Atmos is to have a speaker and a separate feed to that speaker at a large number of separate physical locations in space. Emulating this using digital processing out of two tiny speakers is a joke. Ray Dolby must be spinning in his grave - Dolby should be ashamed for even promoting such an idea and IMO, it's counter-productive as it gives consumers the idea that Dolby Atmos doesn't provide any benefit.
The plot thickens. Competition is good.
I am going to be a launch day customer for ATV. Really want to see what it can do.
Nope. You are wrong. Go read any professional review of the current 4k movies compared to bluray disc. The 4k does not blow away the Bluray disc. You are using confirmation bias.
Give me a specific example of when a 4k movie/TV show blows away the bluray disc version? And yes, it has to be the SAME movie or show.
lol, I dont need reviews or technical garbage, I see it with my own eyes... Maybe a 4k blue ray would look better than a 4k stream, so what? dont care, all it needs to do for me is beat 1080p
A 6-pack of 7 inch tablets for $250 is basically a stocking stuffer for kids that will do light gaming, reading/browsing, maybe watch some YouTube.
And a sure fire way to have a house full of tears.
Trust me. Even little kids know the difference between a POS Kindle and the iPad.
I understand your sentiment but you can get 6 for the price of one iPad Mini 2.
In my experience with the little ones they care far less about the brand and care far more that they each have their own one and don't have to share.
For what a small kid will be doing with it I think there would be less tears from having to share a single superior device that is overkill for their needs.
And if they break it, well its only about $42 if you get the 6-pack.
rogifan wrote: »
Why didn't Apple support 4K? They needs reason for you to buy a new ?TV in a few years.
sog35 wrote: »
Same reason why Apple isn't supporting 8k TV.
Yes 8k TV's are coming next month
Bottom line is 4k and 8k are not ready for prime time.
So tell me how you would play your 4k video from your iPhone to your AppleTV?
Are you telling me you are going to stream a 100GB video file?
My handbrakes 4k encodes takes 150mb per minute, so 9000 mb (or 9GB) per hour.
My Panasonic records at 750mb per minute in a lossless mp4 format, which is 45g per hour.
if you actually had the tech and had experience with 4k cameras and Tv's instead reading reviews maybe you would know better.
sog35 wrote: »
No. You read it wrong.
I'm saying Apple won't include a technology that is not ready for prime time.
Both 4k and 8k are not ready.
Many of you are saying Apple should 'future proof' the AppleTV with 4k even though 4k is not widely used. So why not include 8k also?
I'd take quality over quantity every time.
You may save money in the short-term (but who the hell has 6 kids anyway?) but you can bet those Kindle's will be collecting dust in a month or two. While the iPad will be in use for YEARS.
I was thinking of my nieces and nephews.
I know they would enjoy each having their own little tablets for basic reading, the simple games they play, and other really simple and basic things they do.
Yes the iPad is far superior, no one in the world would dispute that. But I am talking about little kids here with extremely basic needs. Plus its nice and small for their little hands.
There's nothing stopping you from streaming 4k to your Apple TV. It just downrezzes to 1080p. Why is that? Because there are so few 4k TV sets out there, no one would notice the difference.
Apple TV was introduced in 2007 but Apple only started supporting 1080p content in 2012. Supporting only 720p for the first 5 years didn't seem to slow sales much.
That's not what he said. He said 4K on youtube blows 1080P on youtube out of the water, which is a correct statement. You are comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about a streaming box here and there is no doubt that streaming 4K vs 1080P from the same content provider does look a lot better.
Not many people are going to fork out for 4K blue ray players but many people will take advantage of 4K streaming.
Here's what HDTVTest had to say about House of Cards 4K vs 1080p on Netflix..
"The opening shot of Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) and his wife (Robin Wright) running in a park at night is a testing sequence with lots of gradients and camera noise, and we saw minor posterization during the fade in, and around the street lamps. To our eyes, the [2160 HD] layer did not look visibly more detailed than the [1080 HD] one in this fairly dark scene. Where the 4K version did shine was with bright, colourful scenes. On-screen images were rendered with greater sharpness and smoother gradients, receiving a very slight boost in intra-scene gamma and contrast in the process too. Every time the video stream switched from [1080p HD] to [2160 HD], it's as if a veil had been lifted from the front of the screen, bringing objects – even faraway ones in long shots – into breathtaking clarity."
leighr wrote: »
How are they able to make a tablet that costs less than the price of an iPad cover?
I wouldn't waste my money on those POS tablets. Unless they are younger than 5 years old they will be dissapointed. And if they are under 5, they should be exploring the real world instead of staring at a screen 10 hours a day.
OK I get it already. You have a strong opinion. I am not going to try to convince you.
I tried to make a fair and reasoned discussion about it but this is obviously going no where. I'm not wasting any more time on it.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Agree to disagree.