New Apple TV sales start on Oct. 26, ships next week, Cook says

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 184
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    sog35 wrote: »
    fair enough.  My point was that just because the entire industry is pushing it (3D) does not mean it will go mainstream.

    Again look how long it took HDTV to go mainstream?  It took 7-10 years.  I expect 4k to take at least 5 years.  

    4k will be even harder in some ways because people don't want to buy physical media.  The fact is 90% of the population does not have the bandwidth to stream a high quality 4k movie that blows away Bluray quality.

    Ha ha! HDTV actually took a lot longer than that! In high school, I worked in a TV/Stereo shop (1986-ish) and we had people walk out on upgrading to a new TV because their friend had told them that HDTV was the new standard that was "just around the corner" so they decided that they would WAIT and get an HD set.... In 1986!!!

    The point is, there will always be something new that is coming and if you're always waiting for that "next" thing, you'll miss out on a lot while you're waiting.

    4K is coming much faster than HDTV did - but even if there were no other content available - the simple facts that Apple has included a 4K camera on the latest iPhone, and that there are PLENTY of 4K TV's for sale under $2k provide more than enough reason to justify including the 4K playback capability in the Apple TV. Apple does not focus on "the mainstream", they play in the "high-end" market and they consider their products to be "high-end" products so they should assume that many of their customers DO have 4K sets or will be getting them soon.

    It's actually a broken - or incomplete - ecosystem if Apple's highest end TV box can't play the content generated on their highest end phone. That may be something we're used to seeing from other Vendors, but it's not something we're used to seeing from Apple. It doesn't matter if iTunes isn't ready yet. You can bet they're in the process of getting ready. If Apple knew that they were intentionally not going to include 4K capabilities in the 2015 Apple TV, they should not have included a 4K camera in their 2015 iPhone! The fact that they did tells me that there will be a firmware update VERY soon that will be enable the Apple TV to display 4K content.

    As I mentioned earlier, I got an email from my cable provider last week that stated their 4K service would be available by the end of the year and that in early 2016, they will be rolling out "gigabit" internet! (My current internet speed is 250Mbps down/20Mbps up). Download "flipp" or some other app that amalgamated all your latest flyers and then search this weeks fliers for TV's and 4K TV's. It seems like they are dropping in price every week! This holiday season will be huge for 4K TV's and I read somewhere else that there will be a ton of 4K Blu-ray content released in time for Christmas. Those that are thinking it will take 2-3 years before 4K content becomes common are going to find themselves on the tail end of the cycle - which is fine! They'll get some great pricing on their equipment - but I'll be enjoying the 4K content for 2 full years longer than them - and to me, there's nothing more valuable than time!

    Again - I will be flabbergasted if Apple does not release a firmware update before the end of 2015 that enables 4K playback on the Apple TV (or a "pro" version of the Apple TV with an A9 and higher memory capacity specifically for 4K TV's)
  • Reply 102 of 184
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Sorry, its scientific fact that the eye/brain can't distinguish the difference between 4k and 1080p at certain distances.

     

    There are other reasons why you think the 4k looks better:

     

    The 4k TV you saw is running a higher source.  Its probably running a 4k video from a harddisc.

    The 4k TV probably has better contrast ratio, black levels, brightness, and color gamut.  The 1080p TV has lower quality components BESIDES resolution.  


    Here is a good chart for optimal viewing distances:

     

  • Reply 103 of 184
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    no. even collecting personal data is something I don't want. corporations get hacked, can be bought out, and be spied on.

    collecting it is the problem. pretending it isn't is naive.

    Fine - so you would choose to opt out and you would get a slightly less intelligent experience from Siri and from other features that could anticipate your needs more accurately if it had access to more of your personal information. But if some of us were willing to trust Apple with our data because we trust the security they have in place against hacking or because we are not providing sensitive information that would concern us if it were stolen - Apple could potentially do a better job of anticipating our needs and provide a better/smarter overall experience...

    There has to be the ability to opt-out completely for those that share your privacy concerns - but there no reason that Apple should limit their systems to you as the lowest common denominator! For those of us that don't mind sharing certain information that others might think is "sensitive", they could - and should - be doing more and at LEAST be as good as the Google systems.
  • Reply 104 of 184
    bluefire1 wrote: »
    Wallet open and ready.
    iPhone out - just need to find that NFC pay terminal!
  • Reply 105 of 184
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    if either are LCD sets then they both still suck. you can keep them...ill wait until there's something at least as good as a Panasonic plasma.



    People keep saying LCD sucks but I find it a bit odd that all the high end reference monitors costing over $20K from Panasonic, Canon, Sony are all LCD. These are being used for color grading in professional studios.

  • Reply 106 of 184
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    Here is a good chart for optimal viewing distances:

     




    I've always felt that those charts are bogus, and I don't find them accurate at all.

     

    According to that chart, I should be sitting about 3' away from my 1080 27" monitor, when in reality, I'm about 1' - 1.5' away, it's on my desk, and that's how I like it. 

     

    If I sat as far away as the chart indicates, then maybe I wouldn't notice much of a difference, but I can definitely notice the difference between 1080 and 4k, and if I went out and bought myself a 5K iMac 27", then I'd also notice the difference if I replaced my current 1080 monitor with that.

  • Reply 107 of 184
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tenly View Post

    ...

    It's actually a broken - or incomplete - ecosystem if Apple's highest end TV box can't play the content generated on their highest end phone. That may be something we're used to seeing from other Vendors, but it's not something we're used to seeing from Apple. It doesn't matter if iTunes isn't ready yet. You can bet they're in the process of getting ready. If Apple knew that they were intentionally not going to include 4K capabilities in the 2015 Apple TV, they should not have included a 4K camera in their 2015 iPhone! The fact that they did tells me that there will be a firmware update VERY soon that will be enable the Apple TV to display 4K content.

    ...

    So to answer another poster earlier, this paragraph, and the highlighted statement, are exactly the over-the-top negative statements that generate the push back by what you might call "Apple fans" here.  Yes, Apple doesn't include every feature in every product, and sometimes that affects enough people that it can be legitimately called a "miss" from a feature perspective.

     

    However, the reason for the "4K isn't mainstream" pushback is exactly against the rubbish above - that Apple should not have introduced 4k video recording on the iPhone 6s if it wasn't similarly going to have it on the new Apple TV - seriously?  Apple should withhold what they consider a good feature for the iPhone 6s, that will sell by the 10's of millions a quarter, because the new Apple TV (which sells in the single digit millions a year) can't show that video back "in 4K"?  Do you honestly believe what you write there?

     

    As has been mentioned by many knowledgeable reviewers, shooting in 4k video allows a lot of flexibility in editing that video for playback.  The iMacs support the ability to display and edit this.  The fact that this 4k video cannot be beamed straight from a new iPhone to the new Apple TV (without any editing) doesn't cripple the feature.

     

    Get a grip.

  • Reply 108 of 184
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    These interviews with Tim Cook are so boring. We all know the questions that will be asked. We pretty much know what his answers are going to be and what questions he won't answer (e.g. questions about an Apple car). So far tonight we got a question on Apple Music, a question on ?Watch, a question on ?TV, a question on iPhone innovation (buying into the stupid meme that "s" cycle phones are just minor improvements), a question on cars, on Apple retail and on privacy. And with the privacy question no one seems to be pushing back on the trade offs. I wish someone would push Cook on that because there definitely are trade offs and if people had the choice I think some would choose a Google Now/Google on Tap experience. They would be willing to make that trade off. But Apple makes that choice for you. And the choice right now is an inferior experience.



    The only news made tonight was that ?TV ships next week.

    Please tell us specifically, based on your own uses, how Apple's experience is inferior.

  • Reply 109 of 184
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Wait, because I want Apple to kick Google's ass and give iPhone owners less of a reason to use Google's services I should go buy an Android? 

    Classic Concern Troll (or CT).

  • Reply 110 of 184
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Can someone explain why the iPhone 6s supports 4K video recording, we now have 4K and 5K iMacs yet the ?TV doesn't support 4K (while competitor boxes from the likes of Amazon and Roku do)? That makes no sense to me other than Phil Schiller decided it needed to be held back so Apple had a reason for you to buy a new one in a couple years.

     

    Yea, you're probably right.

     

    It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that 4K content and 4K TVs are still in the extreme minority. Oh wait, yes, that is exactly why.

     

    People said the same shit when Apple TV 2 was "only" 720p.

    A year later when 1080p TVs went through a full holiday season, and content providers had started to up their quality to 1080p....Apple came out with a 1080p AppleTV and upgrade all iTunes video to 1080p on the same day.

     

    Expect the same thing to happen with 4K. Apple has no motivation to lead the pack with it. When the market is actually ready to benefit from it, there will be a 4K AppleTV.

  • Reply 111 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     



    I've always felt that those charts are bogus, and I don't find them accurate at all.

     

    According to that chart, I should be sitting about 3' away from my 1080 27" monitor, when in reality, I'm about 1' - 1.5' away, it's on my desk, and that's how I like it. 

     

    If I sat as far away as the chart indicates, then maybe I wouldn't notice much of a difference, but I can definitely notice the difference between 1080 and 4k, and if I went out and bought myself a 5K iMac 27", then I'd also notice the difference if I replaced my current 1080 monitor with that.


    I actually tend to agree with you. I think it's a good chart, but the reality is, everyone sees things differently. Also your vision comes into play as well. The chart is based off someone with 20/20 vision.

     

    Here is what the person says who created this chart:

     

    I’ve also created a chart, seen below, that gives you a quick glance to see what the ideal viewing distance is for a 16:9 display based on size and resolution.  This is based on 20/20 vision, and the viewing range for each resolution is the distance you can sit from that TV and see more detail than a lower resolution, and are not close enough to see the extra detail in a higher resolution screen.  So with a 50? 1080p display, if you are closer than 9’9? you will see more detail than a 720p display, but if you are more than 6’6? away, you couldn’t see any more detail on a 4K display.

     

    I definitively can tell the difference between 1080 and 4K. When I bought my 5K iMac, I knew the minute the screen came on the difference in quality from my old monitor. I was actually pretty blown away at how incredible it looked. 

  • Reply 112 of 184
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> What a crack up this place has become!

     

    ...people saying that if Apple wasn't going to release a 4k AppleTV...they shouldn't have bothered with 4k on iPhone.

     

    Do you have any fucking concept of how many iPhones there are, and how few AppleTV?

  • Reply 113 of 184
    "Did somebody post FUD about Google? Raise shields! Arm photon torpedoes!"

    "Did somebody post FUD about Apple? Carry on."
  • Reply 114 of 184
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    I definitively can tell the difference between 1080 and 4K. When I bought my 5K iMac, I knew the minute the screen came on the difference in quality from my old monitor. I was actually pretty blown away at how incredible it looked. 


     

    Indeed. I was in an Apple store recently and the 5k iMac monitor looks really, really nice.

     

    I'm not a photographer and I don't really edit any videos, but if I did, I'd probably get one of those 5k iMacs, because it's quite a significant step up in my opinion.

  • Reply 115 of 184

    No sign of international pricing yet, which is a bit annoying. I'm planning to order one next week, but it'd be nice to know what the prices were ahead of time to choose between the 32 and the 64.

     

    Based on iPods, I'm guessing £129/£159.

     

    I think I'll probably go with the 32GB anyway though. I'm not planning on installing many games, so I don't know that I'll have much use for the extra space. I can't imagine too many streaming video Apps will hit the 200MB mark, few of the examples of my iPhone are even above about 75MB including caches.

  • Reply 116 of 184
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

     Is 4k 50 inch TV worth it?  Probably not unless you sit 3 feet away from the screen.


    Who sits 3' from a 50" TV? You couldn't even put your feet on an ottoman.

     

    I sit around 8' from my TV.

  • Reply 117 of 184
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Who sits 3' from a 50" TV? You couldn't even put your feet on an ottoman.

     

    I sit around 8' from my TV.




    Hence the point as to why its arugable whether or not 4k makes a worthwhile difference at normal viewing distance. Unlike our phones, tablets, and PCs where the display (and the pixels) are inches away (not feet).

     

    Fact is, 1080p is certainly "good enough" for the living room...and that is coming from someone who sits front of a 5K iMac all day.

     

    But, we'll end up with 4k in the living room anyway eventually...and that's fine. No one should be in a hurry to get there though. You're not missing anything.

  • Reply 118 of 184
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     



    Hence the point as to why its arugable whether or not 4k makes a worthwhile difference at normal viewing distance. Unlike our phones, tablets, and PCs where the display (and the pixels) are inches away (not feet).

     

    Fact is, 1080p is certainly "good enough" for the living room...and that is coming from someone who sits front of a 5K iMac all day.

     

    But, we'll end up with 4k in the living room anyway eventually...and that's fine. No one should be in a hurry to get there though. You're not missing anything.


    I guess I misunderstood his meaning. I read that 8K will probably be the last frontier as the resolution will exceed the capacity of human vision. I suppose it depends on the size of the monitor, but even on a sports arena jumbo-tron the images should still be sharp. It is not so much that you might see the actual pixels but that the antialiasing around moving objects on the screen starts to make things a little blurry.

  • Reply 119 of 184

    I can wait for Plex myself Bolt!  Do you know if they ever figured out the option to connect to external PC sources for our library's (content we ripped or converted etc..)?

  • Reply 120 of 184
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    brucemc wrote: »
    So to answer another poster earlier, this paragraph, and the highlighted statement, are exactly the over-the-top negative statements that generate the push back by what you might call "Apple fans" here.  Yes, Apple doesn't include every feature in every product, and sometimes that affects enough people that it can be legitimately called a "miss" from a feature perspective.

    However, the reason for the "4K isn't mainstream" pushback is exactly against the rubbish above - that Apple should not have introduced 4k video recording on the iPhone 6s if it wasn't similarly going to have it on the new Apple TV - seriously?  Apple should withhold what they consider a good feature for the iPhone 6s, that will sell by the 10's of millions a quarter, because the new Apple TV (which sells in the single digit millions a year) can't show that video back "in 4K"?  Do you honestly believe what you write there?

    As has been mentioned by many knowledgeable reviewers, shooting in 4k video allows a lot of flexibility in editing that video for playback.  The iMacs support the ability to display and edit this.  The fact that this 4k video cannot be beamed straight from a new iPhone to the new Apple TV (without any editing) doesn't cripple the feature.

    Get a grip.
    Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.

    With all of the other verbiage in my post, I'm surprised that you thought I was actually suggesting the 6s should not have included the ability to shoot 4K video.

    But - even if that had been my suggestion - I wouldn't call it "over the top" negativity! That in itself is an exaggeration! As wrong as the statement is - that could be a valid opinion held by some people and suitable for discussion in a forum like this. Had it been a real sentiment, it could have/should have prompted a brief rebuttal/enlightenment such as the detail your provided about the video editing benefits. I'm curious why you would label it as "over the top"?
Sign In or Register to comment.