Apple to launch 4K Apple TV model at September iPhone event

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 71
    kevin kee said:
    And nobody ever thought to download Remote? I only use my iPhone/iPad to remote control my ATV, makes all that typing much easier.

    Kids lost the ATV remote.  It's in the room somewhere, can't find it.  I use the remote app.  Every new day I go to use the app, it fails to connect.  I have to unplug the Apple TV and plug it back in, wait for it to reboot, then the app connects.  I decided to replace the physical remote until I saw it costs nearly half the price of a new Apple TV.  It seems like a complete waste of money when the 4K UHD Apple TV will be out in a few weeks.

    Apple does need to do something about the pricing.  Something is wrong when the Apple remote costs nearly as much as the 4K UHD Roku.  Apple's not just competing with that, it's competing with the free smart TV software that's already built into many TV's.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 71
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,000member
    alandail said:
    kevin kee said:
    And nobody ever thought to download Remote? I only use my iPhone/iPad to remote control my ATV, makes all that typing much easier.

    Kids lost the ATV remote.  It's in the room somewhere, can't find it.  I use the remote app.  Every new day I go to use the app, it fails to connect.  I have to unplug the Apple TV and plug it back in, wait for it to reboot, then the app connects.  I decided to replace the physical remote until I saw it costs nearly half the price of a new Apple TV.  It seems like a complete waste of money when the 4K UHD Apple TV will be out in a few weeks.

    Apple does need to do something about the pricing.  Something is wrong when the Apple remote costs nearly as much as the 4K UHD Roku.  Apple's not just competing with that, it's competing with the free smart TV software that's already built into many TV's.
    That's weird, I've never had my Apps lost connection since pairing. Have you make sure you have the latest software? Use the same Wifi network on both AppleTV and iPhone? Try restarting router? Turn on home sharing? re-setup the app again from scratch? It might worth it to upgrade to AirPort? Because most likely the problem may reside with your wireless networking hardware instead of with the Remote at all. 
    watto_cobrajahblade
  • Reply 23 of 71
    eightzero said:
    Good news all around. I just bought a 4k tv, because the additional cost was all of about $50. My old 1080p one died, so I had to replace it. $50? I'm in.

    I'll buy a 4k ATV to pair with it, and repurpose the existing ATV4. That's worth the next $150. 
    Where did you get the deal on the 4K TV, and how much did you pay?
  • Reply 24 of 71
    Can we finally get local playback of video from storage?  

    I've hit my Xfinity 1024GB cap consistently.  4K isn't going to make that harder even with HEVC. 


    Ditto. Have had to use NAS storage with Plex app on ATV4. Local storage would be simpler.
    I think Plex is far more simple than ensuring your content is in the proper format and container and manually uploading your content, plus you get enhanced metadata and offline viewing (with a Plex Pass anyway). I have a bundle of content still in a compatible format from back when I was storing content locally on my first-generation AppleTV. I still use Plex to view it rather than using the "Computers" app on my 4th-gen AppleTV.
    polymniajahblade
  • Reply 25 of 71
    wigbywigby Posts: 688member
    justme12 said:
    I'm looking into a Amazon Fire Stick. 

    I've owned EVERY Apple TV from the beginning - I just feel I really just feel I've been a pay to Apple beta tester. Felt this way two generations of AppleTV back. I think I'm done with the ATV now.

    Apple you have gotten a few hundred? Thousand dollars from me for ATV now. Why bother anymore? Going to buy the cheaper stuff. Does the same thing at this stage.
    You might want to hold off at least until they announce it because Apple might announce a full catalog of movies in 4K and HDR too. Last time I checked Amazon only had a fraction of movies in 4K and none in HDR yet.
    watto_cobrajahblade
  • Reply 25 of 71
    Can we finally get local playback of video from storage?  

    I've hit my Xfinity 1024GB cap consistently.  4K isn't going to make that harder even with HEVC. 


    Ditto. Have had to use NAS storage with Plex app on ATV4. Local storage would be simpler.
    I'm thinking about going Plex server as well and downloading my 192 movies from iTunes to local storage.  We try to be 
    Carbon friendly at our home and it doesn't sit well with me that i'm constantly streaming from a datacenter that likely isn't 
    as carbon friendly as our local hydroelectric power company.  

    The fact that we have 10TB and rising Hard Drives  available makes storage really a non-issue and I have a fast mesh Wifi network at home. 

    If you run a local plex server for your own content you’re not streaming it from a remote data center when you use your plex app. it connects to the local server. 
  • Reply 27 of 71

    kevin kee said:
    And nobody ever thought to download Remote? I only use my iPhone/iPad to remote control my ATV, makes all that typing much easier.
    Of course I have. But touching a glass screen is an inferior solution to using a tactile physical remote, especially in the dark as it doesn’t require looking at it. 
  • Reply 28 of 71
    eideardeideard Posts: 383member
    d_2 said:
     Completely agreed on revising the remote 

    The live TV play will be interesting versus the current over the top solutions as well as HD homerun

     And 4K UHD is 4X the resolution of 1080P, not 2x

    +1 across the board.  No longer worry about storage since I cut the cord [after 20+ yrs w/DirecTV] and went to Playstation VUE. Cloud DVR saves a month of every show on my subscription.  Up to me to check off which I want for quickest access.

    Hope the new remote actually works for experienced TViewers, easy skip, slip, jump FW & RW.  Apple hasn't made appropriate sdk available to folks like Harmony in the past - while not even close to providing comparable functionality.
  • Reply 29 of 71
    Scot1Scot1 Posts: 39member
     I'm hoping that the new HomePod will have simple and easy to connect interface with Apple TV 4K and that movies to rent or purchase won't be significantly more expensive because my 4K TV and receiver already upscale 1080 P content
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 71
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,164member
    eightzero said:
    Good news all around. I just bought a 4k tv, because the additional cost was all of about $50. My old 1080p one died, so I had to replace it. $50? I'm in.

    I'll buy a 4k ATV to pair with it, and repurpose the existing ATV4. That's worth the next $150. 
    Good for you.  Ignore the Luddites who say 4K won't be even noticeable.  The same crap was said of HD back in the day.
    Soliwilliamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 71
    Long time reader, first time comment...

    Just moved into home with gigabit speed, but plan caps at 1024gb. Bought 3 new LG 4K TV's and blew through cap in under 3 weeks. We stream exclusively, but the living room is really the only TV streaming 4k content.

    I'm definitely excited for a 4K ATV, but will have to be more careful. 

    The ATV remote sucks. I really REALLY like the LG Magic Remote though.
  • Reply 32 of 71
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    d_2 said:
     Completely agreed on revising the remote 

    The live TV play will be interesting versus the current over the top solutions as well as HD homerun

     And 4K UHD is 4X the resolution of 1080P, not 2x
    It is 2x. If you want to correct it on technical aspect, don't compare1080p to 4K. 4K refers to horizontal pixels which should be compared to 1920 horizontal pixels of "1080p". BTW, 4K is the marketing term for TVs because it has only 3840 horizontal pixel vs True 4K at 4096.
  • Reply 33 of 71
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    zroger73 said:
    4K! This is great news for those of us with 20/20 vision sitting 4 feet away from our 80" televisions!

    On a more serious note, I hope the Siri remote gets a complete re-thinking. It looked "neat" a couple of years ago, but after almost two years of real-world use on three Apple TVs, I think the design is terrible. It's too small, too thin, too symmetrical, too sensitive...
    Oh great, another 4K naysayer. You probably had the same attitude towards 1080p as well. 
    4K is useless in the mostly low quality TV panels sold, like 40-50 inchers you look at from 6-12 feet in non native format, simple as that.

    If your getting your TV from internet streams, what your actually seeing is a difference between those stream's quality mostly and not the TV.
    And off the air HDTV would be better than those streams.


    You can invent eagles eyes if you want, that's a fact.

    In movement, the resolution our eyes can latch on is even lower.
    In that case, a very high actual refresh rate would probably be better than a higher resolution anyway.

    If you have a 65 inch+ good quality TV, then you see the difference, especially in slower moving scenes.

    And I've got a good quality 4K computer screen so I know what I'm talking about.
    There is a diff there but I'm not sitting 8 feet away from my screen....

    If your adding HDR, which most cheap TV's don't have and native format encoding, then you would see a diff under 65 inch.
    But, the cheap panels people are buying are not giving you that.


    Things like 8K will be just as useless unless you use it as a way to get full wall TV/screens that you could use real close. The ideal use case there would be very different.



    waverboy
  • Reply 34 of 71
    fallenjt said:
    d_2 said:
     Completely agreed on revising the remote 

    The live TV play will be interesting versus the current over the top solutions as well as HD homerun

     And 4K UHD is 4X the resolution of 1080P, not 2x
    It is 2x. If you want to correct it on technical aspect, don't compare1080p to 4K. 4K refers to horizontal pixels which should be compared to 1920 horizontal pixels of "1080p". BTW, 4K is the marketing term for TVs because it has only 3840 horizontal pixel vs True 4K at 4096.
    1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600
    3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400
    8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4

    It's 2x horizontal and 2x vertical, so overall 4x the pixels.

    The only way a 3840 pixel wide image would be 2x the pixels of a 1920 pixel wide image is if they had equal height. 3840 x 1080 would be quite widescreen indeed.
  • Reply 35 of 71
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    MacPro said:
    eightzero said:
    Good news all around. I just bought a 4k tv, because the additional cost was all of about $50. My old 1080p one died, so I had to replace it. $50? I'm in.

    I'll buy a 4k ATV to pair with it, and repurpose the existing ATV4. That's worth the next $150. 
    Good for you.  Ignore the Luddites who say 4K won't be even noticeable.  The same crap was said of HD back in the day.
    Its not the same crap, your eyes have not been upgraded.
    At normal TV viewing distance, there was a difference, nobody could argue that fact.
    Right now, the actual same charts that proved that say the opposite for 4K.

    The context of use, content and quality of the TV makes a big difference.

    - How far are you from the TV and what size is your panel?
    - What's the quality of your content? Strearming, native, off the air. Compression varies for different streaming options.
    - What's the actual source resolution of the content. Many movies are not really 4K, even if encoded at 4K. Post processing can degrade quality (that's even before compression).
    - Got HDR? which kind
    - What kind of content do you watch? Resolution our eyes can pick up decreases with the speed of the image especially if the source is low fps (like a movie) and the TV has to interpolate the info.

    Often , what people think is a difference in 4K, is a difference in panel quality (more modern) or (content, 4K streams being higher bitrate for example).

    The HDR is more noticeable for most people than the 4K at normal viewing distance.

    But, HDR standard have only solidified lately and not many cheap TV's had them until recently
    stompypropodjahbladewaverboy
  • Reply 36 of 71
    schlackschlack Posts: 688member
    Just feels like a saturated market. I have an interest in an AppleTV, but with my Xbox One, Xbox 360, AppleTV 3rd Gen, FireTV (got for $25), pretty decent LG Smart TV, and our iPads and MacBook Pros...where's the need...how do I justify $150 for this device. 
  • Reply 37 of 71
    Thanks a lot Apple! You've already seduced me into buying a new MacBook Pro with TouchBar, 10.5' iPad and shortly, the iPhone 8/Pro and AW3. You've also persuaded me into  buying the HomePod in December. And now you're seducing me again with a 4K ATV?
    Okay, I willingly accept.
    edited August 2017 watto_cobrajahbladelorin schultzwilliamlondon
  • Reply 38 of 71
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    schlack said:
    Just feels like a saturated market. I have an interest in an AppleTV, but with my Xbox One, Xbox 360, AppleTV 3rd Gen, FireTV (got for $25), pretty decent LG Smart TV, and our iPads and MacBook Pros...where's the need...how do I justify $150 for this device. 
    If your "pretty decent LG Smart TV" is 4K and/or HDR what other device do you own that will output 4K and/or HDR to your "pretty decent LG Smart TV"?

    If your "pretty decent LG Smart TV" isn't 4K and/or not HDR then there's likely little reason with the current rumours, unless HEVC decoding won't be an option for your other devices that you connect to your "pretty decent LG Smart TV" and something you wish to have for small file sizes.
  • Reply 39 of 71
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    nabzif said:
    fallenjt said:
    d_2 said:
     Completely agreed on revising the remote 

    The live TV play will be interesting versus the current over the top solutions as well as HD homerun

     And 4K UHD is 4X the resolution of 1080P, not 2x
    It is 2x. If you want to correct it on technical aspect, don't compare1080p to 4K. 4K refers to horizontal pixels which should be compared to 1920 horizontal pixels of "1080p". BTW, 4K is the marketing term for TVs because it has only 3840 horizontal pixel vs True 4K at 4096.
    1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600
    3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400
    8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4

    It's 2x horizontal and 2x vertical, so overall 4x the pixels.

    The only way a 3840 pixel wide image would be 2x the pixels of a 1920 pixel wide image is if they had equal height. 3840 x 1080 would be quite widescreen indeed.
    He's correct.Your calculations even show 2x for each axis. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the pixels. @d_2 said said "4K UHD is 4X the resolution of 1080P," which is incorrect. 
    edited August 2017 waverboy
  • Reply 40 of 71
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,752member
    Can we finally get local playback of video from storage?  

    I've hit my Xfinity 1024GB cap consistently.  4K isn't going to make that harder even with HEVC. 


    This is what I'd like to know.   So far no Apple TV for me as I really need a system that handles local storage without a hitch.    By the way that would be local storage for both iTunes purchased and other media I may have.    Right now iTunes is pretty crappy in the way it handles third part videos or even Apples own WWDC videos.
Sign In or Register to comment.