For the zillionth time, as SolipsismY has stated, there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding h.265 streaming licensing.
That's more of [@]brucemc[/@]'s hypothesis. Mine is more about content owners and 4K content licensing, more so than HEVC, but I think brucemc makes a very solid case for HEVC licensing being a major issue.
That's more of [@]brucemc[/@]'s hypothesis. Mine is more about content owners and 4K content licensing, more so than HEVC, but I think brucemc makes a very solid case for HEVC licensing being a major issue.
Which is why VP9/VP10 can't be written off. Even the Google-foe Microsoft has signed on to the VP9 project, but not to HEVC.
I'm sure Google will write it off eventually, like they did with Motorola.
BTW, I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention it so perhaps no one here is aware that Google, Cisco, Netflix and Amazon, Intel, Microsoft, and Mozilla are all formally working together to open-source future video codecs and bypass H.265/HEVC and their royalties. Search up Alliance for Open Media.
H.265/HEVC may end up as a failure, or minimally a last gasp for the royalty-bearing patent pool.
"The Alliance’s initial focus is to deliver a next-generation video format that is:
Interoperable and open;
Optimized for the web;
Scalable to any modern device at any bandwidth;
Designed with a low computational footprint and optimized for hardware;
Capable of consistent, highest-quality, real-time video delivery; and
Flexible for both commercial and non-commercial content, including user-generated content.
This initial project will create a new, open royalty-free video codec specification based on the contributions of members, along with binding specifications for media format, content encryption and adaptive streaming, thereby creating opportunities for next-generation media experiences".
Which is why VP9/VP10 can't be written off. Even the Google-foe Microsoft has signed on to the VP9 project, but not to HEVC.
It can't be written off, but I still doubt it will gain any more traction than its predecessors. HEVC licensing will settle out in time, as the patent holders will determine it is better to make HEVC the standard so they can sell their respective equipment/sw & get some licensing from it, vs. allowing a competitive codec to take that role. Takes awhile for inflated egos and posturing to come to reality though.
For those who continue to raise the "4k can be streamed now" with current codec technology (e.g. H.264) topic, you have to consider what is meant to look "good/very good", not just OK (err.. Netflix). Here is some interesting information from YouTube regarding their recommendations for video bitrates, encoded for H.264, at different resolutions.
As expected, with 4K being 4x resolution of 1080p, it requires about 4x bitrate (maybe a bit more with more colour information). While we do see services delivering 1080p with H.264 for less than 8Mbps, it does depend on the content type, and not all looks good. Some households (still a minority in many countries) do have high broadband connections (50Mbps+ downstream), but even then the rate is not guaranteed and often you get far less during peak times as the BW is shared at different points in the broadband and IP distribution network. Supporting a sustained 30Mbps stream during primetime is not feasible for most.
Thus HEVC, which "offers promise" to halve the bitrate, can get that down to a more reasonable 15Mbps for a 4k stream, thus leading to mainstream adoption in a few years.
HEVC licensing will settle out in time, as the patent holders will determine it is better to make HEVC the standard so they can sell their respective equipment/sw & get some licensing from it, vs. allowing a competitive codec to take that role. Takes awhile for inflated egos and posturing to come to reality though.
I have serious doubts myself. Between all the heavyweights contributing IP and commitments to open-source I think the days of a royalty-requiring HEVC may be numbered.
First things first. It's ugly! Who designed this thing? The OG ATV puck was perfectly designed. Adding 3/8"and calling it new is the laziest act I ever recall Apple doing. Someone @ Apple should've kiboshed the design.
So why does the iPhone 6s support 4k recording then? Even if there's not a lot of 4K content right now that doesn't mean there won't be in a year or two. Perhaps people would rather not have to buy another Apple TV in two years? No one has yet given a credible technical reason Apple TV doesn't support.
Not specifically technical but how about an iPhone costs at least $500 more.
I don't see it as a big deal. Can probably go weeks between charges and the small battery will charge quickly.
No, because there is no USB-A port on the Apple TV. What we don't know is if the USB-C diagnostic port will supply power, so that those are willing to fork out for a USB-C-to-USB-A adapter on Monoprice will be able to charge via their Apple TV.
I had been hoping for inductive charging for years using the top of the device, and for those that have an Apple TV that isn't well placed for such charging or simply want something closer to their couch or side table, they could offer an inductive charging stand as an accessory purchase, which may have yielded them even more revenue and profit.
What a mess.
I envisioned a much better ATV when rumors started like customized experiences for Everyone in the family activated by TouchID. Imagine how cool a transparent black TouchID like the black iPhone has would have looked on the lower end of the remote?
Since the device doesn't have to be thin or fit in your pocket they could have added an A9X chip or even something more powerful. Apple held back on purpose. Read between the lines.
This isn't the revolutionary AppleTV fans were waiting for. The problem is content providers getting on board. Until then you can bet Apple is holding it's cards back. This was just something for those who've been waiting years and to give content providers a little kick in the butt. There's a reason the AppleTV wasn't shown off at the end of the keynote along with a "one more thing" by Tim.
I envisioned a much better ATV when rumors started like customized experiences for Everyone in the family activated by TouchID. Imagine how cool a transparent black TouchID like the black iPhone has would have looked on the lower end of the remote?
Since the device doesn't have to be thin or fit in your pocket they could have added an A9X chip or even something more powerful. Apple held back on purpose. Read between the lines.
Pretty sure they "held back" from that so that the device wouldn't cost $300+.
As I stated above, Apple provided a direct response to the question to Andy Ihnatko (and if I recall correctly, Ihnatko stated this in a Macbreak Weekly video podcast recently).
Jobs once told people Apple wouldn't come out with an App Store or a Windows iPod. It makes no sense for Apple to support 4 k now. The content isn't there, and the bandwidth infrastructure isn't developed enough either. Streaming from the iPhone to the Apple TV 4K would likely be a bad experience because of technology limitations, and most home internet services have bandwidth caps. Streaming 4K video would quickly eat up the caps. Apple knows all this, and wisely elected not to support it at this time.
It can't be written off, but I still doubt it will gain any more traction than its predecessors. HEVC licensing will settle out in time, as the patent holders will determine it is better to make HEVC the standard so they can sell their respective equipment/sw & get some licensing from it, vs. allowing a competitive codec to take that role. Takes awhile for inflated egos and posturing to come to reality though.
For those who continue to raise the "4k can be streamed now" with current codec technology (e.g. H.264) topic, you have to consider what is meant to look "good/very good", not just OK (err.. Netflix). Here is some interesting information from YouTube regarding their recommendations for video bitrates, encoded for H.264, at different resolutions.
As expected, with 4K being 4x resolution of 1080p, it requires about 4x bitrate (maybe a bit more with more colour information). While we do see services delivering 1080p with H.264 for less than 8Mbps, it does depend on the content type, and not all looks good. Some households (still a minority in many countries) do have high broadband connections (50Mbps+ downstream), but even then the rate is not guaranteed and often you get far less during peak times as the BW is shared at different points in the broadband and IP distribution network. Supporting a sustained 30Mbps stream during primetime is not feasible for most.
Thus HEVC, which "offers promise" to halve the bitrate, can get that down to a more reasonable 15Mbps for a 4k stream, thus leading to mainstream adoption in a few years.
This is the best explanation of why the Apple TV doesn't support 4K. Besides data caps, most US households simply don't have the speed to support 4K even if content was available.
Streaming from the iPhone to the Apple TV 4K would likely be a bad experience because of technology limitations.
How do you figure? IPhone to ?TV is a closed system -- peer to peer, as are the 4K iMacs. No network required. Apple controls the technology entirely. So dad shoots a 4K video during his trip to Disneyland on his iPhone 6S+, goes home and streams it instantly to his 4K TV via peer to peer AirPlay, then decides to edit it on his 4K iMac, and stream it back to his 4K video from the iMac. He sees some more changes he wants to make, which he does on his iPad Pro, and then streams it right from the couch. 4K content, closed technology environment, devices capable of creating and outputting 4K. The experience should be perfect.
Comments
That's more of [@]brucemc[/@]'s hypothesis. Mine is more about content owners and 4K content licensing, more so than HEVC, but I think brucemc makes a very solid case for HEVC licensing being a major issue.
I'm sure Google will write it off eventually, like they did with Motorola.
BTW, I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention it so perhaps no one here is aware that Google, Cisco, Netflix and Amazon, Intel, Microsoft, and Mozilla are all formally working together to open-source future video codecs and bypass H.265/HEVC and their royalties. Search up Alliance for Open Media.
H.265/HEVC may end up as a failure, or minimally a last gasp for the royalty-bearing patent pool.
EDIT: Here's the presser from a few weeks ago:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150901006148/en/Alliance-Open-Media-Established-Deliver-Next-Generation-Open#.VeayPX3QoxI
"The Alliance’s initial focus is to deliver a next-generation video format that is:
Interoperable and open;
Optimized for the web;
Scalable to any modern device at any bandwidth;
Designed with a low computational footprint and optimized for hardware;
Capable of consistent, highest-quality, real-time video delivery; and
Flexible for both commercial and non-commercial content, including user-generated content.
This initial project will create a new, open royalty-free video codec specification based on the contributions of members, along with binding specifications for media format, content encryption and adaptive streaming, thereby creating opportunities for next-generation media experiences".
Which is why VP9/VP10 can't be written off. Even the Google-foe Microsoft has signed on to the VP9 project, but not to HEVC.
It can't be written off, but I still doubt it will gain any more traction than its predecessors. HEVC licensing will settle out in time, as the patent holders will determine it is better to make HEVC the standard so they can sell their respective equipment/sw & get some licensing from it, vs. allowing a competitive codec to take that role. Takes awhile for inflated egos and posturing to come to reality though.
For those who continue to raise the "4k can be streamed now" with current codec technology (e.g. H.264) topic, you have to consider what is meant to look "good/very good", not just OK (err.. Netflix). Here is some interesting information from YouTube regarding their recommendations for video bitrates, encoded for H.264, at different resolutions.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en
(24, 25, 30)
(48, 50, 60)
As expected, with 4K being 4x resolution of 1080p, it requires about 4x bitrate (maybe a bit more with more colour information). While we do see services delivering 1080p with H.264 for less than 8Mbps, it does depend on the content type, and not all looks good. Some households (still a minority in many countries) do have high broadband connections (50Mbps+ downstream), but even then the rate is not guaranteed and often you get far less during peak times as the BW is shared at different points in the broadband and IP distribution network. Supporting a sustained 30Mbps stream during primetime is not feasible for most.
Thus HEVC, which "offers promise" to halve the bitrate, can get that down to a more reasonable 15Mbps for a 4k stream, thus leading to mainstream adoption in a few years.
First things first. It's ugly! Who designed this thing? The OG ATV puck was perfectly designed. Adding 3/8"and calling it new is the laziest act I ever recall Apple doing. Someone @ Apple should've kiboshed the design.
I haven't been here for as long as either of you but I gotta say @SolipsismY is one of the more level headed posters on these boards.
I've never seen Soli loose their cool, but I don't read every single post and miss a lot.
So that is just my two cents based on a little bit of observation.
Then again, they no longer have pennies in Canada so your opinion of my observation might well be rounded up or down.
Oh, I do. Can't deal with crazy without getting a little crazy yourself.
I've never seen Soli loose their cool, but I don't read every single post and miss a lot.
Oh, I do. Can't deal with crazy without getting a little crazy yourself.
Alright, well I will just have to pay more attention.
Mine still says Preparing for Shipment :-(
So why does the iPhone 6s support 4k recording then? Even if there's not a lot of 4K content right now that doesn't mean there won't be in a year or two. Perhaps people would rather not have to buy another Apple TV in two years? No one has yet given a credible technical reason Apple TV doesn't support.
Not specifically technical but how about an iPhone costs at least $500 more.
What a mess.
I envisioned a much better ATV when rumors started like customized experiences for Everyone in the family activated by TouchID. Imagine how cool a transparent black TouchID like the black iPhone has would have looked on the lower end of the remote?
Since the device doesn't have to be thin or fit in your pocket they could have added an A9X chip or even something more powerful. Apple held back on purpose. Read between the lines.
This isn't the revolutionary AppleTV fans were waiting for. The problem is content providers getting on board. Until then you can bet Apple is holding it's cards back. This was just something for those who've been waiting years and to give content providers a little kick in the butt. There's a reason the AppleTV wasn't shown off at the end of the keynote along with a "one more thing" by Tim.
What a mess.
I envisioned a much better ATV when rumors started like customized experiences for Everyone in the family activated by TouchID. Imagine how cool a transparent black TouchID like the black iPhone has would have looked on the lower end of the remote?
Since the device doesn't have to be thin or fit in your pocket they could have added an A9X chip or even something more powerful. Apple held back on purpose. Read between the lines.
Pretty sure they "held back" from that so that the device wouldn't cost $300+.
1 of 2 shipped, from PA...
Jobs once told people Apple wouldn't come out with an App Store or a Windows iPod. It makes no sense for Apple to support 4 k now. The content isn't there, and the bandwidth infrastructure isn't developed enough either. Streaming from the iPhone to the Apple TV 4K would likely be a bad experience because of technology limitations, and most home internet services have bandwidth caps. Streaming 4K video would quickly eat up the caps. Apple knows all this, and wisely elected not to support it at this time.
This is the best explanation of why the Apple TV doesn't support 4K. Besides data caps, most US households simply don't have the speed to support 4K even if content was available.