Every time we post an Apple TV-related opinion piece, the comments show that some people are still really upset that Apple left 4K Ultra HD support out of the fourth-generation model when new Roku and Amazon boxes included it. It seems like merely mentioning the new Apple TV is enough to start fights, which commenters have spread from article to article without resolution. So we wanted to give everyone with opinions (strong or otherwise) a place to share their thoughts on this subject — hopefully to spark an intelligent, well-reasoned discussion.
Does 4K support matter at this point, given how many/few 4K TV sets are in use today? It’s been suggested by some that it really should have been included in the new Apple TV, given that 4K video recording was a major new feature for the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus. But there are also a few reasons 4K support might have made the set top box impractical to release this year…
If you just want to say “yes, 4K matters” or “no, it doesn’t,” take the poll here and register your opinion. But we’d really like to hear your personal reasons for caring or not caring. Share them with us below.
My perspective? I don’t yet own an 4K Ultra HD TV, so 4K support doesn’t currently matter much to me — and I like the new Apple TV just fine without it. But I am recording all of my iPhone 6s Plus videos in 4K so I can go back to them in the future and watch them in “Ultra HD” whenever I buy a 4K TV. Recent sale prices have been extremely tempting.
If I was guessing as to why 4K was left out of this year’s model, my suspicions would be:
- The uncertain state of 4K video codec licensing when Apple was finalizing the device’s specifications. An industry group called HEVC Advance was attempting to extort high licensing fees for 4K devices and streams using H.265 technology, which Apple seemingly dodged by using older H.264 technology for iPhone 4K recordings. I suspect Apple will switch to H.265 now that royalty disputes with HEVC Advance have been… sort of settled.
- That’s sort of how Apple TV rolls. Apple used 1080p support (and little else) to differentiate the third-generation Apple TV from the second-generation model. A “new” Apple TV with 4K could get a new launch and new publicity.
- It probably would have required a better A-series processor. It’s easy to say “come on, Apple, add 4K,” but not as easy to implement — assuming Apple follows tradition and “does it right.” Supporting 4K video streaming would have been fairly easy with the A8 processor. But since the Apple TV plays games now, Apple wouldn’t support 4K videos without also supporting 4K games, which (think back to the iPad 3) would likely require an A9X-equivalent chip just to deliver A8-like frame rates at 4K resolutions. If Apple had added 4K support without a suitable processor, developers and customers would have complained that perfectly playable 1080p iOS games were stuttering at 4K resolutions. Supporting only 1080p made iOS ports easier (and generally problem-free) until A9X or A10 processors are widely available and more affordable. That’s why I’d guess we’re at least a year away from Apple TV with 4K functionality; it would also explain the new form factor’s huge focus on chip cooling.
What are your thoughts?
More From This Author
Check out more of my reviews, How-To guides and editorials for 9to5Mac here! I’ve published a lot of different topics of interest to Mac, iPad, iPhone, iPod, Apple TV, and Apple Watch users, as well as a personal gift guide for Apple fans, a great gift guide for iPhone users, a detailed gift guide for Mac users, and a separate gift guide for Apple photographers.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
My bet is it’s largely about when iTunes gets a bunch of 4K content.
I think this is tied in to #1 and #3 above. Apple isn’t going to re-encode 4K content – it’s going to do it one time in the “right” format. And it’s not going to release the content until it has devices that can play it back (smoothly?). So if it settles on HEVC/H.265, that’s a big step, both because it locks in a standard and sets bandwidth performance expectations. At that point, Eddy Cue or whomever’s running the iTunes Store by then can do a 4K launch for whatever devices support 4K playback.
Apple will only encode to 4K content that is shot in native 4K. There is no point at reincoding HD content if there is no 4K master as the chip on the Apple TV will do that job anyway. But granted, it would need a serious catalog of native 4K content to begin with.
You also seemed to forget about this rumor that Apple might be starting producing it’s own video content, like NetFlix or Amazon is already doing. And this would be shot in native 4K. Only then will it be really necessary for Apple to have a 4K Apple TV.
My own theory is along these lines: I think they’re still trying to work out HOW the 4k upgrade is going to work with respect to the current video libraries of iTunes users.
The problem is all of the millions of movies that people already own on iTunes. Will everyone automatically be able to get a 4k version of those? I’m sure the studios want everyone to rebuy those at the higher resolution (similar to needing to rebuy DVDs on Bluray) but at what price? Should we have to pay fully for the movie again (obviously what the studio would like) or an “upgrade” fee or should it be “free” (what consumers would like).
I think that working out the details of that transition is taking time and negotiation. So, Apple just decided to leave off 4K.
Imagine the EPIC screaming if Apple released 4K support on the Apple TV but didn’t have any 4K content!
This would only be valid for content originaly shot at a native 4K resolution. Also movies shot on film will need to be rescanned and restored at 4K resolution. There is no point of re-encoding content that is not native 4K or better, because the Apple TV (to be) will do that job anyway.
I’m not sure how this is working today with iTunes about content that you originaly bought in SD and now becomes available in HD. Do you pay the difference in price or do you have to buy it again? Anyway, that is what’s happening with DVD to BluRay.
Us nerds always forget about the operational aspects of things. I’d bet you are exactly right. I bought “The Incredibles” in SD when it first came out. A few months back, I wanted to watch it, and when I played it, it was only available in SD. When I went to iTunes, I could see that it was available in HD, but all I could do was download (which gave me the SD copy). There was no option to upgrade, and I certainly wasn’t automatically upgraded.
Going to 4k adds another level to this. For a company that prides itself on straightforward interfaces, it’s a conundrum.
I think it depends on how they label and sell 4K. For example if you buy an SD version of a movie, you have to buy it again in HD if you want it. On the other hand, all HD purchases were upgraded from 720p to 1080p when the HD resolution was change in iTunes.
You might be right…that had occurred to me too.
It’s really not important yet, people don’t generally have 4K TVs and their 1080p Full HD TVs are still perfectly good – people only generally upgrade their largest TV every 5-10 years. The Apple TV isn’t supposed to be a long term investment, so future-proofing it with 4K support would be largely pointless. By the time 4K matters, there will be other compelling reasons to upgrade the box anyway.
Have you shopped in a store this holiday? 4K TVs are fairly cheap now and are selling pretty well.
Given the standard rate of TV replacement in recent years (I believe it’s about 20% give or take), it’ll take at least two or three years for the market share to be in the majority. And of those that own 4K TV set’s they’ll also need the bandwidth (and higher data caps for those subject to such) to support it since Apple TV is a streaming player. As the article notes, H.265 decode will need to be establish (uses less bandwidth relative quality). Right now, 4K is a marketing buzz in which very few people can actually take advantage of. In two years there will be a next generation AppleTV.
Selling well is relative. There are vastly more 1080p TVs still in use, and the penetration of 4K into the second and third TV space is minimal, since bedroom and other second/third TVs tend to be in the 32″-40″ range where 4K is of somewhat diminished value. These TVs are considerably cheaper and more frequently replaced, where they are not just cycled down from the primary TV in the household. As another commenter noted, it will take two or three years before 4K penetration reaches a level that can be considered mainstream, and at least one year before it’s genuinely the hot new prospect. People in general are not excited about 4K yet. 4K Sets are selling primarily because they’re the sets that are available. There is no mad rush of consumers desperate to get 4K yet, the way there came to be with HD. We are not at that stage yet.
Yes, everyone wants 4K TVs, and if you have a 4K TV, you want devices that work with it. So Apple is behind in what people want.
However, I don’t think it actually makes in difference in useable quality. Unless your TV is bigger than 65″, you’re not actually going to notice any difference when you’re sitting on the couch. You’ll only notice when you go up and get really close to the TV. (Notice that people always do this when they first see a 4K TV because it’s the only way they can tell the difference). In addition, almost all content isn’t 4K. Most cable isn’t even full 1080p quality, so I doubt they’ll go 4K anytime. Even Netflix has some 4K, but that requires a very fast internet connect. I have Comcast cable, and it doesn’t always keep up with even 1080p content. Finally, there’s the matter of data caps, and if 4K content starts becoming normal, then you can bet that approximately 4x the bandwidth is going to get the internet providers implementing data caps pretty quickly.
I guess what I’m saying is that 4K doesn’t really make a difference for the majority of people, but people still want it, so AppleTV is at a disadvantage, at least with people who know what 4K means.
No not everyone is dumb enough to not realize 4K resolution makes zero difference on a TV under 65″, but enjoy your gimmick.
See thats exactly why investors are tired of Apple. Always “leading from behind” by holding back products from the “wow” factors that other products have offered long before them. That stock is going to limp along in 2016
Yea, Apple is really struggling these days. I bet they close the doors for good by 2017
Yeah, cus thats what I said….good one
There is no 4k content on the iTunes store.
At this point there is probably more 4K home videos sitting in iPhones with no TV to push them too. than the entire iTunes movie catalog.
Joel – i really hope that is sarcasm lol for your credibility’s sake
I had a perfectly fine 1080p Sony XBR television but recently upgraded to a Sony XBR 4K TV. Even though 4K content is pretty sparse, this television is overall sharper, cleaner and has better colors than my 1080p TV. And all content is upscaled to 4K and looks PHENOMENAL. So even without a lot of 4K content out there, you’re still reaping the major benefits of a razor sharp image 99% of the time for viewing.
Regarding the Apple TV not having 4K…even though I have a 4K TV, I really don’t care that the new Apple TV doesn’t have the capability (and yes, I have the new Apple TV). Apple is big on the user experience and 4K consumes a lot of bandwidth. One thing that can ruin a user experience is having the videos buffer all the time or loading up a movie and then waiting and waiting and waiting. Since my TV upscales the content anyway, I’ll take the standard 1080p file that I know will load quickly and stream beautifully.
Up scaling isn’t always a good thing – history had proven that. Basically all upscaling does is fill in missing pixels – and this doesn’t always work as expected unfortunately. That said, 1080p upscaled on a 4k is really beautiful
I know LG has done a great job of upscaling to 4k. They’ve improved on it a lot since I first got my tv.
I bought the Apple TV 4 because it was new and the refresh was 5 years old. It would have been nice to say 4K is included but at this point for most people is a tag line to brag about specs like 2 gig ram or 12 megapixels. The reality of the apple tv is that its failing me and not appealing to many because it lacks the streaming live cable service almost promised with rumors for 2 years. That would make 4K look as important as samsung’s eye movement gesture to control stoping a movie when leaving a room. Apple should have at least started a netflix type option that teamed up with Disney. Most parents who buy this gadgets males in late 30’s have kids and major selling point for Netflix and even amazon prime is that they have a lot of kid shows.
” the apple tv is that its failing me and not appealing to many because it lacks the streaming live cable service almost promised with rumors for 2 years”
Wait. So the Apple TV is failing you because it doesn’t have a feature that Apple has never once announced or even hinted at? Interesting.
I recently bought a 4K TV on black Friday so, yes, it does matter to me. Is hard to switch back to 1080p after watching those gorgeous graphics in movies and tv series. My smart TV has youtube and netflix, both support and broadcast content in 4K, a beautiful thing; even another reason to skip Apple TV 4th gen. I will settle with my 3rd gen until then. I guess Apple loves to crash into parties very late.
Most people don’t have the bandwidth to stream 4K. 4K content will move from H.264 to H.265 which is more bandwidth efficient yet needs more CPU resources to decode and that will require a better CPU. Expect that to happen in about two years IMHO. That’ll be the next AppleTV.
I’ve got the ATV4 and I’m pretty happy about it as is. I have a 55″ tv and given the distance I watch it from, I’m gonna need a much bigger TV to appreciate 4K.
Distance and screen size is very important if 4K matters to someone. In most setups people can’t tell the difference of HD and 4K. It’s not mentioned enough on purchasing a HD or 4K TV or if Apple TV should support 4K
“Daredevil” in 4K on my 55″ Samsung looked much better than in 1080p on my old 46″ set.
Distance and Screen size was the same argument with 1080p and 720p several years ago….yet 1080p still became the winner….4K will replace 1080p no matter if you can tell the difference or not. Just like every iPhone packs more pixels yadda yadda yadda. Its how technology rolls.
Since most, if not all, 4K TVs upscale content to 4K resolution, you CAN tell the difference. With your comment about people not being able to tell the difference, I can tell that you don’t have a 4K TV or haven’t seen enough 4K TVs in action. It looks better from all distances, but if you’re going to pixel peep, yeah, it still looks awesome. 1080p TVs look like crap from up close.
@Samuel
There is so much more that goes into how something looks that the number of pixels your TV and video source has. I believe that Daredevil in 4K on your new Samsung looks much better than in 1080P on your old 46″, but attributing that to 4K vs 1080P doesn’t make sense. Source bitrate and TV specs (other than pixel count) are two huge differences that will make much bigger impact on your comparison than simply the pixel count.
What 4K content are you watching on your 4K TV? Ultra Blu-Ray hasn’t been released yet, 4K streaming, really? You’re not getting 1080P streaming. They can call it that, but it’s compressed to hell. Do you have one of them Sony 4K players? Lastly, is your 4K TV 120″ or larger or do you sit 1 foot in front of the screen?
Most people can’t seem to tell the difference from Blu-Ray 1080P to a DVD because they have to small of a HDTV for the distance they sit. Which more then likely is much larger then they think. From that distance Blu-Ray or DVD, Looks the same. 4K doesn’t do anything either. Sure you’re in the store, standing right in front of the screens and can see the picture looks better, but from a distance? Not really. The greater the distance the larger screen you need. 4K is what you’re watching going to the Movie Theater on a HUGE screen. Generally in the begining they will show something like Sony Digital 4K right there. Is your TV that size?
3D failed to get people out buying new TV’s to replace their HDTV’s. Now it’s 4K. I’d rather buy a larger 1080P HDTV then a smaller, pointless 4K TV. Streaming 4K content, get real. 4K TV content? not happening any time soon. Took long enough to make the switch to HD. There’s really no point to go higher.
You may want to get your eyes checked, I can tell the difference between 1080p and DVD quality on my laptop.
I’m with Shareef…dude, you need to get your eyes checked. My Sony 4K upscales all content to 4K resolution and even standard 1080p content looks PHENOMENAL on the 4K screen. I have a 65″ XBR model. And watching true 4K content on YouTube or Netflix is a MASSIVE improvement over 1080p. MASSIVE. Color, sharpness, depth, shadows…it’s all better. Seems that most of the people saying “you can’t tell the difference” don’t actually HAVE a 4K TV to compare or only spent 5 minutes in their local Best Buy looking at one. Seriously…if you took time to look into this, you’d be converted.
As a professional compressionst who also does some video production, I agree with you. It’ll take several years before 4K TVs have majority market share based on typical 5 year turnover. Additionally most people don’t have the bandwidth (AppleTV is a Streaming device). That will change with the H.265 encoding which is more bandwidth efficient but will require the CPU to handle it. Despite what other claim, at typical living room distances, most people can’t see the difference. The newer TVs are better of course but to see the RESOLUTION difference you have to sit fairly close or have a 4K TV 65″ or larger. People are really caught up in the marketing and probably mistake improved TV tech with higher resolution.
“The NEW Apple tv 4……K. Tv os in 4k is magical. We know our customers will love the new Apple tv 4k. 4gb just $149. And 128gb for just $199. Old tv 4 now starting at $79.”
My ATV 4 is connected to a 720p projector. When that projector fails it will get replaced with a 1080p projector, but I don’t think projectors will reach 4k at an affordable cost anytime soon. Not to mention that the difference between 1080p and 4K is not visible at many common viewing distances. I also don’t particularly want to stream 4K content because if I’m doing it, others will be doing it and that means slower Internet for everyone. 4K is just not an issue right now. And I don’t see much need to future proof a $150 item.
Data caps, data speeds, lack of content and other things that have been mentioned a thousand times here shows 4K won’t be a good experience in streaming for at least 2 more years.
I would rather have HomeKit and Aiport features built into an Apple TV then 4K video. Built in wifi for directly setting up and controlling Homeakkt would made Apple TV a true hub for your home. At CES Samsung will show off Smart TV,s that directly control Internet of things devices.
Lack of HomeKit devices and lack of it being a feature of the 4th generation Apple TV are very disappointing. After 2 months of use I can say the Apple TV is the most disappointing Apple Device I have purchased. Siri’s movie searching and other features are not enough to justify the $149 to $199. Gaming only goes so far. Apple fucked up by not previewing the Apple TV at WWDC like it had planned. The developers needed much more time with it.
4K is least of my concern about the 4th gen Apple TV. The remote layout could be much better, HomeKit, built in wifi and other features are much more desired then 4K.
There is a reason many 4K TV’s on Amazon come with hard drives with 4K content. 4K is not ready to be streamed over the internet riot for all consumers. We are still waiting for 4K Blu Rays. In 2-3 years content and infrastructure will probably be enough for 4K streaming to be a good experience for most. Netflix is currently working to make HD content more suited for streaming. Anyone tried streaming Netflix on 3-6 Mbs DSL. It’s a shit experience and download speeds and data caps on broadband of many providers makes 4K also a shit experince now.
I would definitely agree that I’d like homekit/airport features built in, but I suspect Apple would rather sell you two devices…..
I agree. 4K, pointless! More marketing BS then anything. Do you have a Movie Theater size screen in your house? OK, 4K matters for the few of you. For everyone else, it’s pointless. Homekit on the other hand should have been part of AppleTV4. In fact should have been a huge part and really pushed. All I see is Apple doing a whole lot of nothing in this area. They kind of threw it out there and now it’s just floundering. So I’ve stayed out of this area for now, just watching and waiting for something to happen.
4K streaming, please, what a joke. 1080P streaming is a joke. It’s not Blu-Ray quality, but acceptable to most because they have to small of a HDTV for the distance they sit. 4K will do nothing because you need to have even a larger TV to make use of 4K. 4K is what is shown at the Movie Theater. If your TV screen is that big, ok, 4K would matter to you!!!
When the current gen Apple TV launched 4K tv was sitting at less than 1.5% nation wide (USA, I’m not sure about worldwide). Also, I think there is an issue of getting a consistent stream from carriers at 4K, let alone enough content.
This is akin to the original iPhone still being on AT&T Edge (2g) because 3G was not widely enough adopted.
I am perfectly content with 1080p on my Apple TV until I see 4K as the standard for content provided. That is when I’ll expect Apple TV to have 4K and when I’ll actually buy a tv with 4K.
There is very little 4k content. There still isn’t 4k blu ray. There is no point right now.
Anyone who wants to think Apple didn’t include 4K because there isnt enough content yet or it hasnt taken off yet has their heads in the sand. The next Gen will feature it and Apple will describe how amazing 4K footage shot on the iPhone and edited on the iPad look. This was all an upgrade ploy by Apple. The fact is 4K TVs are dirt cheap right now 9to5toys was offering one at 600 yesterday I believe. This is classic Apple, just like you stated, they pulled the same stunt with 1080p. And I for one will skip it this year so that I buy a future proofed device. Not to mention that A8 is going to be pretty choppy once Devs start coding their games for the next model released with enough power to push 4K.
Agreed. Amazon and Netflix are providing more new content in 4K. “Jessica Jones” looks great!
The price isn’t the problem. They are many 4K sets 49″-55″ that can be Had between $500 and $800.
Netflix has a handful of shows and documentaries that support 4K. For me 4K streaming is a no go for me because of 300 GB a month data cap on my 100mbs cable broadband. Just normal HD on Netflix eats quickly into my data caps.
The infrastructure and way isp’s are set up now does not make 4K streaming a good experince for most people now.
It needs time. Like I said before many 4K sets include a hard drive with 4K shows and movies. No 4K Blu Ray are out now. For the price of 4K sets yes most people should purchase one for the small difference between it and a smart tv. They have t wait for the connect though.
A 49-55″ 4K TV is pointless unless you sit about 1-2 feet in front of the screen to see that better detail. That’s the problem with 4K. People already have to small of 1080P HDTV for the distance they sit and think 1080P streaming looks good. It’s not Blu-Ray quality. Play a DVD and it still looks just fine. Because of screen size to distance.
According to THX, for a HDTV, Divide the size of your screen by .84 (screen size is measured diagonally). For example, a 65-inch TV divided by .84 equals a 77-inch viewing distance (6.5 feet).
So for a HDTV at 6.5 feet, you need a 65″ HDTV!!!! So you have already blown though your 49-55″ 4K TV’s as being way to small if they were only a HDTV for most people. 6 1/2 feet to 8 feet I would assume be around the normal viewing distance for people. Get out that Tape measture and check your distance. With a 4K TV, that jumps up screen size a lot more. At 6-1/2 feet, I’m going to assume you’ll need around a 80″ TV!!! 8 feet, around 120″.
If you want to see that 4K detail, you need a screen large enough to do it!!!
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/
This TV Size Calculator is pretty good and easy to use.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship
Using it, and a standard distance of 6-1/2 feet, 32″ for 480P, 46″ for 1080P, and 70″ for 4K. Their screen size maxes out at 75″ and 7.1 feet. The point being, if you want to take advantage of a 4K TV, you need to bump the size up much larger then you thing. A 55″ screen, has a seating distance of 5.2 feet. A 49″ screen, only 4.7 feet. You want to be able to see that 4K resolution on your 49″ 4K screen, 4.7 feet is pretty darn close to the screen.
So a normal 6.5 feet distance, 70″ 4K TV. Random prices at Amazon. Ouch!!! The cheapest I’m seeing is a Sharp at $2K but rated only 3 stars. It just gets much worse in prices from there. A 75″ Vizio for about $2800. A Sony for $3500. So on and So on. These are are Realistic screen sizes and prices if you want to actually take advantage of a 4K TV!!! Otherwise you’re wasting your time!!!
This is why I say most people already have to small of a HDTV for the distance they sit. You throwing out cheap 4k prices on tiny 4K TV’s is a joke!!!
You made my point for me i said that distance from the TV and display size mattered. I said for around the same price as a smart 49″ -55″HD set you can get a 4K of the same size.
I decided to skip this Apple TV because it doesn’t have 4k, even though I don’t have a 4K TV yet, and the only 4k content I currently have is from my iPhone. But I decided that anything I upgrade at this point should be 4k. Since Apple has already implemented 4k on the iPhone and iMacs I imagine a 4k Apple TV isn’t that far off.
Tell me, How far away are you from the HDTV do you sit? have you whipped out a tape measure and actually measured that? Here’s a simple to use Calculator, Distance is kind of Limited, but you get the idea.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship
There’s a number of these Online if you look. Lets take a normal viewing distance of 6-1/2 feet. For 480P it’s 32″, for 1080P, it’s 46″, and for 4K it’s 70″
Why this is? Well at’s about Pixel size and how large you can go and distance before you can start seeing the Pixels. Also be able to see the extra detail of the image. What do you think you’re watching when to yo to the movie Theater? Well if it’s not Film which is disappearing, it’s Digital 4K!!! Now that’s a huge screen.
So a cheap 46-55″ 4K TV, are you sitting 4-5 feet from that screen? Otherwise you’re wasting your time. Will you’re Wife let you mount that 70″ screen or larger to the wall after you’ve been a big chunk of money!!! You’re really getting to the point of better off going with a 4K Front Projector at this point. Those are not cheap either. With the right size 4K screen, 4K streaming now looks like a joke. So you need to wait around to buy a Ultra Blu-Ray player to take advantage of the correct size of 4K display you now have. TV isn’t going 4K anytime soon. it took them long enough to switch to HD. Looking at 4K screen sizes, How much of the population are willing to get the correct 4K screen size?
Now you already have fools talking 8K. Who plans to sit in front of a 200″ screen 6.5 feet away? See it’s just silly!!!
You just don’t fuck off do you! If he wants 4K on a 40″ then who gives a dick?!
omg bud give it a rest already. You made your point and then some. Why do you care so much. People are free to do what they want with their money. You can post all the links that you like it’s not going to change anything.
Lots of people can see the difference between 4K and 1080p even on smaller screens. All you have to do is go to Best Buy. I don’t care what THX says and I don’t think that the TV manufacturers do either.
You can forget about 4K gaming, unless you’re happy with jewel matching casual junk. Even high end PCs can’t play games at 4K without serious compromises.
As for 4K video, new TVs are already 4K once you get beyond low end stuff, so within a year 4K will be the industry standard. Apple will have to put out a 4K Apple TV by the end of next year at the very latest. With Amazon and Roku already 4K, they can’t afford to be left behind again. I can only assume the ATV4 isn’t 4K because it’s essentially a product which should have been released the best part of a year ago, which also explains why it’s running last year’s chip.
High-end PCs can run 4k without serious compromises. Really depends on how efficient the game is though. I have no issues with Battlefront @ 4k, ultra everything. Anyways, that’s irrelevant.
It’s interesting about Apple TV running last year’s chip because that’s when it should have been released. That makes a lot of sense, actually. We were long overdue for a new Apple TV and maybe some internal BS pushed deadlines out a year. Not sure what the reason is but that’s a fair assumption.
It’s very possible that upper management kept delaying finalization of the software because they were hoping the TV service was going to be worked out. When it didn’t happen, there was a lot of catch up to be done. In fact, the late betas I had on the developer device had some serious bugs I thought should have been worked out long ago.
Yeah, I got an Apple TV for $1 because I was in the developer program. Not sure if it’s worth buying at $150. Since I’ve had the thing, it appears that the software was always lagging behind. I agree the hardware was ready to go for at least 6 months prior to release.
I largely agree with this, but there’s a major difference between high-end PCs and iOS devices — to oversimplify, let’s call it “polygon counts.” (Add textures and other factors impacting pixel-pushing speeds if you want.) A 3D game built for a PC is typically going to need (and have) really high-poly models in order to look acceptable on a PC-sized monitor even at sub-4K resolutions. By contrast, uuntil the iPad Pro (and arguably Apple TV 4) came out, every iOS game just needed to look good on a 9.7″ or smaller (typically much smaller) screen, and the models didn’t need to be as complex.
The amount of horsepower required to move super-complex sub-4k assets around is huge. Some people are buying special cooling systems just for the graphics cards to do that. Most “high end PC” gamers would never be happy with the natural iOS alternative: use considerably less complex models (and textures etc) to reduce necessary horsepower. As seen with the iPad 3, which was just powerful enough to run iPad 2 3D models at “2X” resolution at roughly the same frame rates, the “here’s the resolution, support for better models comes later” approach is Apple’s typical “first step” between major graphics generations.
Putting 3D completely aside, iOS gamer expectations are so low that I suspect transitioning from 1080p to 4K gaming will be easier for Apple TV than for high-end PCs. App Store’s top charts suggest that “you’re happy with jewel matching casual junk” describes a huge fraction of the iOS customer base. I would be so happy if this wasn’t the case, but it’s reality.
I think they missed out on a big opportunity here. All their competitors are doing it; however, Amazon is doing a lackluster 4k @ 30fps which is lame. I ended up getting an NVIDIA Shield to get 4k @ 60fps and added bonus of streaming my PC games to the TV. I’m pretty happy with it so far and I know that’s something Apple TV couldn’t provide. I was pretty disappointed as I had been waiting for Apple to release a new version of the TV.
Better luck next time, I guess.
No, they didn’t blow it by failing to include a feature. Instead, they blew it by half-baking a number of the features they did include, making it a frequently frustrating device to use. Siri is missing Netflix shows (try asking “Watch Making a Murderer”), the remote frequently goes unresponsive, half the apps crash, text entry is a nightmare, and the remote’s no-line-of-sight-necessary feature is every bit as much a blessing as a curse.
4K is a feature which is to the vast, vast majority of people, a complete waste–there’s the obvious shortage of content filmed in 4K, sure, but the bigger issue is that few have access to the bandwidth for it. Had Apple included it, far more people would be complaining that to upgrade to the latest hardware, they had to pay for a feature they couldn’t use (as many overseas buyers of the iPhone 6 did when they discovered that Apple Pay wouldn’t be coming to them for years).
I live in Canada where there’s zero 4K content that isn’t user generated or a YouTube video. I also don’t want to get sucked into another format war. Resolving the format issues and getting content into wide distribution, especially in Canada, will take years yet. I bought a couple of Apple TV 4’s. They don’t have 4K. So what? I’ll replace them when 4K is widely available. They’re cheap.
At this point the UHDTV/4K standard is where Blu-Ray was in the early days: several conflicting standards are vying for dominance. Sure Apple could have picked one and made it their “standard” but TV is different from other industries. The egos from the producers to the distributors to the cable companies are terrified that Apple will do to TV what they did to music. Preventing Apple from becoming a dominant player in the market is one of the few things they agree on. As soon as Apple selected one form of 4K, most of the industry would automatically settle on a different one. I suspect this is why Apple didn’t include 4K, they want the market to sort itself out.
As to why I didn’t buy an AppleTV this year, my plans to cut the cord and go fully streaming to save money and get what I actually want have been progressing slower than I had hoped.
I’ll only buy one since I’m planning on getting a 4K TV next christmas. I don’t want to be stuck with 2 non-4K Apple TVs by then. If it had 4K today I would have bought another one for the bedroom TV.
Nobody mentioned bitrate yet? Netflix 4K looks pretty bad compared to a 1080P Blu-Ray– the infrastructure for high-bitrate 4K streaming just isn’t here yet. While I agree that it would be nice to view your iPhone 4K shots via the Apple TV, 4K streaming just isn’t really worth it compared to 1080P from a picture quality standpoint. Good 4K content will stay limited to 4K Blu-Rays for quite some time.
Agreed, I would rather see 1080p bluray bit rates than 4K! Also: how about HD _sound_!? The new ATV does at least do 7.1 (and iTunes movies do seem to use it) – but no one is streaming Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD-MA.
I would rather have HD audio streaming before 4K.
Anyone can throw up big blocky crap that technically decompresses into 4K resolution… I want more quality… not quantity….
We have to consider that there isn’t enough 4K content nowadays to think of an Apple TV with 4K. Streaming 4K requires bandwith, in many countries the bandwith is not good enough to support that. There is also a need of a large amount of space for 4K. It’s not time to think of 4K content on streaming devices.
What bandwith do you need to Airplay your 4K videos shot from your iPhone to your TV?
I agree with you if that in that situation. But then you are limited to the iPhone 4K sotrage (2.5 hours for a 64 GB)
I would rather they focus on delivering higher quality 1080p content than lower quality 4K content.
I am not sure why it does not as the iPad Air 2 can edit 4K video if memory serves me correctly, so is this just a software omission given they both use the A8 and the Apple TV comes with more RAM as standard. If so it can be rectified.
0.0.0.0.0.0.1 of people care.
You can talk about future proof, but the fact is, 4k is not standard on everything right now.
As of right now 30% of buyers passed due to this one feature alone, add in the other features that have been mentioned above and Apple alienated half of potential buyers from this release.
30% of 9to4mac readers who clicked on this article and bothered to vote claim to have passed on it due to a lack of 4K.
Also, don’t forget the specious but always-posted comment that polls lie and statistics are meaningless. (Note: if the poll doesn’t have a statistically generalizable 3,000 responses yet, it will within an hour.)
Since I just bought a 4K UHD Samsung TV I can guarantee I would not buy the Apple TV 4 – i shall just steam through my PS4 and the built in apps instead
So what’s the screen size and the distance you sit from the screen?
At 6.5 feet from the display, 46″ or larger is what you need. For 4K, it’s 70″ or larger. Or did you do the silly thing and just get the same size TV but in 4K? Digital 4K is what you’re watching when you go to the Movie Theater. Is your screen remotely that big? Lots of these calculators on the internet. This is a simple one, though distance/size is limited.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship
Unless you’re up close enough to see the better detail, you’re wasting your time. 4K streaming is a joke anyway. You’re not even getting real 1080P streaming. Ultra Blu-Ray for 4K hasn’t been released yet. Most people already get to small of a HDTV for their sitting distance, it’s even worse for 4K.
I decided not to upgrade yet partially because of the lack of 4K capability. I have a 4K projector and limited 4K streaming is available now. I also have 4K upscaling from my Lumagen video processor. In addition the new iphones can record in 4K as can my Sony AR7ii camera. My viewing distance from the projector is close enough that 4K benefits are visible. A bigger concern for me is the lack of technology consistency in Apple’s lineup. You have phones that can now record 4K but a brand new Apple TV that cannot handle it. You have an iMac which is 5K and a high end Mac Pro which is stuck with an aging non-HD display. You have iphones, ipads and Apple Car Play that can use Siri but desktop Macs which cannot. And you have a company which is so secretive that you have no idea whether and when these inconsistencies are every going to be addressed.
Yeah, it matters. I record a bunch of videos in 4K of my kids and would have been nice to be able to stream those in 4K using AirPlay from my iPhone.
4K would be a nice feature but it wasn’t a deal breaker for me. I have a 49″ 4K smart tv in the living room but I don’t watch any 4K content. I briefly tested House of Cards on Netflix, but at 49″, the difference wasn’t noticeable enough to justify paying the higher 4K subscription price to Netflix. The upscaled 1080p is almost indistinguishable. If I had a huge tv that would be a different story, but my bigger “movie room” tv downstairs isn’t getting upgraded to 4K until OLED comes down in price. I would also have to get a new receiver because it doesn’t pass through 4K.
Initially I was very upset that ATV 4 didn’t support 4K when my iPhone 6S shot in 4K. I was thinking that I would not be able to watch my home videos shot on the phone. This isn’t the what happens though. The Apple TV will scale 4K video down to 1080p on the fly. So while it would be nice to see the video in the native resolution, it is less of an issue than I had originally thought it would be. Many experts have difficulty discerning between 4K and 1080p content when viewed at normal viewing distance. I would agree.
how many of us really have a 4k tv i realize the hardware if they wanted could handle it. not all consumers have access to 4K TV as it has not gone down enough in my option your may vary but thats what i think to be honest.
come on guys, not even FullHD tv stations are standard – at least in germany/austria. if you want HD stations you have to pay the extra cash…
I believe the processor is the key issue here. Not only does it need to have the power to display anything at 4K resolution, especially rendering games at good enough a frame rate, it also positively needs to be an excellent upscaler – that is to upscale SD or HD content to 4K – and that isn’t cheap. Good video upscaler comes at a price, and the higher the definition, the more complicated it gets, because imperfections are more easily visible.
If that was so easy and affordable enough to make a profit, I guess both Sony and Microsoft would have included it in their game stations already. But they haven’t.
Choice 3: Yes they should have done 4k, bought it anyway.
Well,it is true that 4K is still not mainstream these days but lack support means that you need to buy another pricey apple tv box(Supports 4K) in the shortly future with your hard earn money(if you don’t care either,then it is not the problem),leave 4K to aside,not support for HEVC sucks because that you could not play them,simple as it is.BTW you can easily buy an android box that only cost 1/3 of new apple tv price to get all stuff(4K,HEVC,KODI etc),so you can upgrade up to 3 times in the nearly future to have latest technology with you for the same cost that only gives you 1080P and old codec box with famous logo on it(basically it doesn’t do a lot of things).
Not an android fan but for years,I and my friends came with this kind of conclusion which is below:
For phone & tablet : stick with apple (because of android system)
For TV boxes : stick with android (because of android system,do whatever you want)
For productivity : stick with windows
Just my 2cents
I wouldn’t skip it just over the 4K issue, because I don’t yet own a 4K TV. But, I probably will in the near term, and leaving out 4K certainly is one factor. The main reason I didn’t buy this round of Apple TV is because Apple did not release its long-rumored streaming live TV channel, which I believe will be a game changer for whomever does that first. Granted, today’s box *probably* will play nice with whatever streaming channels arrive, but why take the chance when my current box is working just fine…
I have a 4k TV and of cause an iPhone 4S with ability to film in 4k, but no means to transfer the film to the TV. What is the point of making an iPhone with 4k ability without an Apple TV with the same ability?
I mean an 6S
The TV4 is a beta product that should not have been released this year. Its not just the lack of 4k support but many other design choices and niggles that spoil the user experience. As somebody else mentioned here, its the worst new Apple product in a long time. Reminiscent to a certain extent of the sub-par products they used to release in the era before Jobs return in the late 90s.
I am not sure which is more beta and worse product of the year the Apple TV or Apple Watch.The Apple Tv is the worst Apple device I have ever bought. What makes it so bad is they were working on this Apple Tv for 2 years and had plenty time to tweak the hardware to include its own Airport to connect HomeKit devices, Include HomeKit support and use it as a hub for your entire home. It looks like they spent the time working on Siri’s movie knowledge.The remote could been much better played out as well.
I bought one. Don’t care about 4K yet.
Oddly enough their latest phones record and provide playback of 4K video. Their desktops are marketed at 4K+. The preloaded apps such as netflix and hulu deliver 4K programming. Last but not least youtube has some awesome 4K stuff.
As others have mentioned 4K TVs prices have dropped significantly from a year ago.
Yes I have purchased the new Apple TV only because the wifi is much better than the ATV3.
However, I stream 4K content through the Oppo or Amazon FireTV, depending on the TV.
Why don’t they have 4K or similar quality media available?
I would say apple missed the boat but I think only a very small % of people will be bothered by this,
I got one, don’t have a 4K TV so it doesn’t bother me yet. What does bother me is the amber light on my network switch by the TV designating that my device is running on a 100MB connection. How could this device not have gigabit internet? My ISP speeds are higher than the 100MB cap on the apple tv line so I’m losing out on bandwidth needed for Netflix, WWE Network, and any other streaming app. I know we’re all stressing about the lack of 4K, but the market share isn’t there yet for 4K but it will soon down the road. That is, unless this is the no blu ray drive non-sense apple had years ago when that was the latest and greatest and Steve Jobs said it would be a big bag of hurt….
If you are hardwired through an ethernet cable on your new AppleTV that may be part of the reason why you’re only getting 100 Mb per second. Try unplugging and just using Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi is actually faster than a straight ethernet connection.
Having a phone that records 4K and no way to airplay that to the TV was dumb. As far as the codec goes, I have several 4K movies that are encoded in H.264 so I’m not sure that H.265 is the issue.
Not necessarily…shooting video in 4K and streaming in 1080p will always look better than shooting in 1080p and streaming in 1080p since the source material was captured in higher quality. I noticed the same thing with my GoPro. If I shoot in 1080p and export in 1080p, it looks good. But if I shoot in 2.7K or 4K and export in 1080p, it’s still a lot sharper and cleaner than the native 1080p video. In terms of making the experience better, I’m ok with streaming my 4K videos to Apple TV in 1080p format. At least it won’t buffer!
4k doesn’t bother. The stability of the latest Mac OS, iOS and tvOS bothers me. I’m not seeing a good trend here from an Operating System version that was meant to tighten up the loose ends.
When I upgraded to the latest version of OS-X all kinds of things starting going wrong, especially with iTunes, but over time they all seem to have sorted themselves out somehow…odd. As for iOS, ever since upgrading to 9.2 my iPhone 5S has had an excessive battery drainage issue that hasn’t sorted itself out! Its so bad I’m now considering a Mophie battery phone case, despite using it lightly. The only way to prevent it from happening (temporarily) is to completely shut it down and turn it on a gain. But even then it only works for one charge, after which it goes back to draining at a ridiculous rate! I charge to 100% in the evening, get up the next morning and its down to 60%! Even though nothing was happening over the night…no background app updates nothing! I have to charge now at least two times a day despite barely using it…very very frustrating!
Probably in order to avoid getting sued by individuals who “unknowingly and unawares” binged watching an entire season of a show in 4K that ended up using their entire month worth of data.
I only stream free content and streaming bitrates are not high enough for even 1080p60 to fully utilize those bits, not to mention 2160p60.
While I understand there is not a lot of 4K content available yet, nor are there tons of 4K TVs in use, This does not have the purchasing trends of the iPhones. I will not be buying a new apple TV every 2 years. I want one that will last me 4-6 years (which is reasonable based on how apple has figured the product iife upgrade cycle).. And I’m betting that in 2 years, you won’t be able to purchase a TV that is not 4K. I’m betting in 2 years there will be tons of content to stream 4K. But in 2 years… the existing apple TV will not let me enjoy any of those features. I’m not willing to purchase something that was already obsolete before it was even released. I guess it’s great for people who still have the mindset that their VCRs are still good enough for them.
I don’t think they “blew it”, these will sell just fine and they have a higher profit margin. But I wouldn’t pay $100 for one personally- I see 4K as the future, and I want to be able to watch 4K iPhone videos. I also LOVE looking at DSLR photos in 4K on a big screen. This is normal Apple though- they kept 720p on the old Apple TV for years. If they add it in the next hardware upgrade (and use a faster internal chip) then I’m all in.
Any developer I’ve heard talking about the the aTV4 says that it likely was finished and sat on a shelf for well over a year before it was announced. Looking at Apple’s current lineup that box has VERY old tech; and Apple is usually way behind the cutting edge with these things already.
I think the Shield TV is a much better box, and it’s been going for the same price, and includes a REAL controller. Much better buy, and better App + Game selection. I’ll probably wait until June, and if the new aTV doesn’t have 4K I’ll pick up a discounted Shield and use it for a few years.
People keep saying that movies would have to be re-encoded for 4K, but looking at many restored movies I have on iTunes, they were remastered at 4K anyway from the original print. All of the Bond movies for example (watch to the credits at the end, and you’ll see the 4K credentials) so my guess is that many of these movies that had full HD restoration treatment, already have 4K versions and would merely need H265 encoding for delivery.
Now how people with TWC, Comcast or Verizon internet services will cope with 20GB movies, is another question.
Do you all think if it was 4k, Apple would have bumped up the price even more? That is my biggest worry
There are various reasons why it made sense for Apple to forego 4K in the ATV4 …
1. 4K TV’s aren’t expected to reach 50% market penetration until 2020.
2. The relative lack of readily available 4K content.
3. Content owners/providers (i.e. Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, etc.) will take a massive bandwidth cost hit to stream 4K content. Which is the primary reason for #2.
4. The average US broadband speed is 12.6 Mbps per Akamai. High quality and reliable 4K streaming would require 20 Mbps or more with current compression technology.
5. And last but certainly not least, customers are routinely being screwed with DATA CAPS with HD streaming. Imagine how much worse that would be with 4K streaming!
If Apple were to wait til 2020 for a 4K Apple TV they are bloody insane.
My next tv will be 4k but thats because I know in a few years 4k will be “there” and I’m doing a bit of future proofing. The reality is that 4K is not “there” yet. HD is where +95% of current content is filmed and distributed. Why would I stress future proofing a $150 device? By the time 4k is ubiquitous enough to make it a no brainer that generation of apple tv will have enough features to make it worth upgrading.
The funny thing is that HD is still relative. Most local broadcasters still only broadcast in 720p, even after all this time, because the cost to upgrade to 1080p is prohibitive, especially for such a (relatively) small difference in picture quality.
My feeling is that Apple blew the Apple TV 4 by taking so long to release it. I like my Roku and I’m still feeling slighted that my 3rd generation Apple TV still doesn’t have support for Apple Music (which I have a bunch of separate issues with and am not subscribing to out of principle).
One thing is certain, nobody uses gadgets which aren’t needed. Most TV’s come ready to have apps installed, Netflix is sending UltraHD directly to TV sets, so with Netflix and other apps and services streaming UltraHD soon the need for AppleTV will disappear. Consumers want Pro gadgets and the geniuses at apple killed the MacbookPro17. Consumers want more battery life and the geniuses at apple keep on slimming down the iPhone instead of loading more battery and ram to keep them from crashing. Sometimes I think they forget about what consumers really want and they just listen to each other in their bubble.
The lack of 4K support didn’t ruin it. Letting content providers build their own apps ruined it Hulu is buggy garbage; Netflix, HBO Now and CBS have worse UI; and overall, I just find it faster doing things on the previous generation because Siri is about as much use as a chocolate fireplace.
Adding back in support for Remote is the only thing that pulled me back from the brink with it.
4K is so overrated. When we went from 480i to 720p/1080i/1080p it went from not being to really see what was on the screen at 42+ inches to wow, I can actually make out the picture at 42+ inches. 4k is more like, ah it’s a little nicer to look at but if it was gone I wouldn’t miss it at 55 to 65 inches (even 70 but that is getting debatable at least).
Until you can buy an 80+ inch TV I don’t really care about 4k for TVs (monitor is a different story and it’s not because of “clarity”). In short, Apple did the right thing by waiting for the technology to mature, cheapen and become applied to the right solutions (larger screens).
I did not buy an Apple TV. It wasn’t lack of 4K. It was a lack of differentiating from competitors that cost less that do the same features. Apple would sell me on the Apple TV if I could bring all my iOS purchases to the tv and if Apple built a game controller that could be used on any iOS or OS X device. Right now my Amazon Fire Sticks are doing the same tasks for only $19.99. What apple also needs to do more than anything is clean up iTunes, how it handles files, and its interaction with iOS devices.
My 2cents.
I purchased a 4k Samsung 40″ smart TV this month. I typically sit 12′-15′ from the screen.
I have to say, I can see the difference between 4k native and 1080p DVD or 4k upscaled [1080p] streamed content. Upscaling generally looks good but I can appreciate the difference with native content.
To those who say you need a very large screen to appreciate anything over 1080p, I say rubbish. A relatively small 40″ 1080p TV only displays at about 55 pixels per inch. My 40″ 4k has about 110 pixels per inch.. more on par with a typical LED desktop computer monitor. 1080p resolution is too low for detail, particularly text, on even what’s typically considered a fairly small TV screen [like my 40″]. We’d never accept 55DPI on a computer monitor.. it’d be atrocious. Why is it acceptable on much larger screens with much larger pixels?
Aside from a noticeable general improvement in picture quality with 4k content, 4k resolution on my 40″ TV is particularly appreciated with video content that contains text [like video scenes where documents are displayed]. It also makes the Menus and content guides much easier to read. I found the Xfinity X1 channel guide was particularly difficult to read on my previous 32″ 720p. Printed content is, as you’d expect, razor sharp on the 4k though.
I passed on a very good deal on a plain 4k screen because it wasn’t a smart TV and my Comcast service is unlikely to offer 4k content anytime soon. I knew my 3rd Gen AppleTV wouldn’t do any better and as much as I’d like to play with one, I had no intention buy a 4th Gen AppleTV to only get 1080p video on a new 4k TV.
I have to say, now that I’ve had time with the Samsung smart TV environment, I don’t see any need to buy an AppleTV in the future.
It works extremely well. It’s much better at buffering video than my AppleTV v.3 on my often troublesome Comcast internet connection. Where I would expect to have stuttering with every netflix show I watched on the AppleTV, I only recall one problem so far with scores of netflix shows watched on the Samsung smartTV netflix and Amazon apps.
Apple lost at least one sale from me. They’ll probably not get another Apple TV sale to me in the future either. Cats out of the bag- I don’t see any advantage over the built-in SmartTV functionality that would warrant dealing with another external box. Integrated all the way.
Also..
‘AppleTV v4 chip probably wasn’t fast enough’–
Could be. A quick browse and all the 4k smart TVs I looked at (granted only a few) had quad-core chips. Still, Apple’s got the expertise to do low-level coding in it’s TV OS to squeeze every drop of performance out of the the 64-bit A8 Chips, which were pretty fast in the iPad/iPhone. It also begs the question.. why not spend a few dollars more and put an A9 in if you needed more horsepower for 4k? It’d have made the AppleTV much more attractive.. it’s also have made it a much more useful Gaming Device [something Apple talked up at the AppleTV v.4 release]. The per-unit cost difference between the chips is probably just a few dollars to Apple but it would have made the device much more appealing.
I don’t think Apple blew it. I think they are doing exactly what Apple does best: release a damn-good product with some obvious deficiencies. When they upgrade the device, they’ll do so as a “bundle”—the 4k AppleTV will launch alongside a collection of 4k content.
Had they done it all upfront, what would they have sold you on for the next one?
I’m not convinced the gaming capabilities are a huge issue—Microsoft and Sony have shown that you can get away with rendering at one resolution and then upscaling it to native resolution.
Using that logic, why EVER put 4K in it, just keep dragging customers along selling them underpowered devices because they believe Apple will offer the goods sometime down the road. So lets say they put 4K in the 2016 release, NOW WHAT WILL THE SELL YOU IN 2017?!? Apple should be in the business of selling Premium products at their premium price points, withholding features to create planned obsolescence and forced upgrades isn’t selling premium product, its dirty business.
While I was being sarcastic with that exact statement (since people seem to think Apple likes to sell underwhelming devices for premium pricing), the general idea holds true.
Apple would prefer to sell you a product with fewer, polished features. Other companies will push any idea they have out into the marketplace—sometimes to say they were first, and sometimes because they are looking for the market to help them refine it.
It’s not as if Apple doesn’t know about 4K. In the process of determining what they could both build *and support*, they decided that 4K didn’t meet the requirement.
The truth is, if you’ve ever worked on any sort of product, things have to ship. That inevitably means time constraints to polish features, and ends with some things—even great ideas—being cut. Then you spend the time between version one and version two building and polishing the next set of features. And when version two is released, there will be a number of features that didn’t make it that will wait for v3.
That’s not planned obsolescence. It’s just the nature of selling things in a fast-moving industry.
Now, I can see the rebuttal that Roku has a 4K streaming device. How can a tiny company like Roku manage while Apple can’t? That’s where the ecosystem comes in. Roku doesn’t have a movie and tv store; Apple does. For Apple, it can’t just be about making the widget—they need to make sure all the touchpoints under their control are aligned.
How would you feel if you bought an AppleTV and there was no 4K iTunes content to go with it? The only way to get 4K content was by paying a third party like Netflix?
That’s simply not a situation a company like Apple is interested in entertaining. They pride themselves on creating great end-to-end experiences, not on putting something out there and saying “figure it out”.
The HDMI interface on the new Apple TV devices can support the throughput needed for 4K data, and the CPU on the device is perfectly capable. Furthermore, the SDK for iOS 9 provides constants that suggest HEVC support is already possible. Perhaps the real reason is licensing, and with Apple’s partnership with Cisco, it may be they are trying out Cisco’s Thor codec also.
Really? I thought they didn’t have the right HDMI spec for that.
If the current AppleTV can be upgraded to support 4K video playback, it makes this whole thing even more of a non-issue. They’ll get to 4K when they figure out (A) what codec they’re using and (B) the licensing to sell and upgrade videos on iTunes.
Apple probably should have included it as a pro spec on the 64gb model and kept the 32gb as an entry model.
But I don’t really think 4K is really suitable for streaming. It needs a lot of bandwidth and suitable internet speeds, something a lot of people don’t actually have.
Downloadable content would be viable, but iTunes don’t offer it and I think other apps only allow streaming, plus space is limited on the Apple TV.
I think Apple have missed out on offering 4K and also a lack of expandable storage.
Poll should have a third option:
No: I care about 4k support, but not enough to not buy it.
Yeah this is where I sit. It’s a disappointing omission and I’d love it to be there for when I buy a 4K TV in the future, but it wouldn’t stop me buying an Apple TV today (unless of course rumors of an early 2016 revision persist, in which case I might hold off).
4K will be a viable bet for Apple in the next year.. Just look at the price drops this holiday season on 4K tvs.. More people will have 4K TV sets next year and Apple will have to cater to the increasing demand… As others have stated, iTunes will need to add 4K content first and foremost. Most likely will tie-in with the announcement of the Apple TV 5.
Apple TV’s are cheap to buy so I don’t see a problem if 4k comes along later. I’ll just buy 2 more Apple TV’s. There is not much 4k on Youtube to watch so even buying a 4k TV is a waste of time for a couple of years and least.
I don’t care about 4K. What pissed me off are the little things. No App Remote support or bluetooth keyboard support. Mainly App Remote support. I gladly got my refund back. Told my dad how garbage the Apple TV 4 is and he didn’t buy one.
Omision of 4k is the least of the issues.
Completely omitting organizing apps and personalizing content and channals and notifications is what’s mind boggling. ….After 4 years or more in develoment. And then the music end and the remote( though awesome in concept ,, functionality is not well polished )
My stupid time warner dvr gives me better control on content than appletv at its present TVOS level does !
Apple, thats not in any shape or form acceptable from a company known for “insanely good”.
Hope all these are ironed out for next software update ! You must !
Hope in 2016 all the bs of 2015 will vanish and apple will be back to its Greatness!
..
I don’t own a 4K TV but still think it was disappointing 4K wasn’t available. Yes, there isn’t much content and yes, the hardware isn’t common in homes, but Apple through iTunes is a content provider as well as a hardware provider via the Apple TV. While a user would still require a TV, Apple does own a considerable amount of the pipeline required to get 4K TV into peoples homes and I’d love to see them start moving that way, not just in regards to the Apple TV but the content they sell as well.
Even if it isn’t prolific it gets hardware into peoples homes so that soon enough it will be more common. Also, UHD can be sold alongside HD and SD so it’s not like people need to jump if they aren’t ready. It’s likely been years since many people here sat and watched an SD TV set, but iTunes still makes the format available.
The other fringe case is the fact the iPhone supports 4K recording now. The Mac lineup with the exception of the Air have moved to higher resolution displays, but I figure many people who’d like to showcase their iPhone recorded videos would like to do so on a TV.
Besides, the Apple TV is an expensive piece of hardware. How much really would the HD component cost to add? I suspect it’s fairly minimal, and that getting the iTunes Store ready would actually be the bigger challenge. Even without iTunes content (and keeping in mind Apple likely doesn’t want to be left behind), there’s still Netflix and the like who are slowly introducing the content.
Without a figure to show the cost would have been substantially higher, I can see no real good reason to not have 4K output. At worse it’s something the buyer cant take advantage off and at best it’s a fantastic feature for an existing TV. Just having the boxes in living rooms might help persuade more content creators to get 4K video on the market if it’s perceived that a good portion of people can play the content and to that end I’d have liked to see it included to help the entire ecosystem progress.
I have a 4K and having a phone that shoots 4K it would be nice being able to stream it to my tv. I have Apple TV3
One more thing…Apple thought about 4K for their puters and phones and it’s there, it should of been there for Apple TV also cause one reason I buy their stuff is that it all works together! This to me is dropping the ball and is why I’m not buying this version. 4K bluray players will be out 2016 and will roll out slow cause of costs for the players & the blu-rays.
Doesn’t bother me. My Tv is 1080P and i don’t now 4K Yet. I plan on it in the future, but waiting on price to go down.
This is not a problem. Apple never uses half baked technologies, instead it implements those when everything is ready and polished. NFC, Wi-Fi 802.11ac, etc. The same with 4K. HEVC (H.265) is not finished yet, it still doesn’t render videos with grain as good as H.264/AVC does. And videos with grain are almost 9/10 of all movies ever shot because it is the side effect of the film itself and only movies shot on digital cameras don’t have grain. So, it means that 4K videos is not yet ready for “everywhere use” at Apple. You can’t see these rendering problems on iPhone screen, but you will notice those in a second on TV.
I like apple doing their way, need > want
There should be a 4K version at some point, however, the technology needs to catch up to the displays. Playing 4K video might be ok, but gaming in 4K might present a problem. The current Apple 5K iMac can’t even make games look good in 4K. 4K is not on any of the current gaming consoles either. The Apple TV is a small device, therefore, I don’t expect to see a fully capable 4K Apple TV any time soon. That being said, I’ve, noticed an improvement in video quality on the 4th generation model over previous Apple TV’s.
Im sorry but this Apple TV should definitely have 4K to say 4K is pointless at this point is stupid when just about every TV that will be released in 2016 will be 4K capable. I’ve owned every Apple TV to date including the new one and honestly I don’t even use the thing I just stream my content directly through my 4K Samsung JS9000 because content looks much better. Apple loves giving people small incremental updates to their products just look at how long it took iPhone to get the ability to shoot 4K video I mean come on, for the money we pay for apple devices they should include the kitchen sink. people will catch on sooner or later that Apple isn’t innovating and leading the Tech world like they use to there stock prices are starting to reflect that as well. 4K should be in every Apple product at this point in my opinion its clearly the future and people should not have to buy another Apple TV year from now just to get the same machine just with 4K capability its just stupid and greedy on their part. but hey people love giving Apple their money including me.
TVOS developers should visit the Genius Bar cause theres lack of magic in the interface.
Apple blew the Apple TV before that. I replaced my Apple TV with a Roku about a year ago and haven’t looked back. Mostly it’s because AppleTV / iTunes did a very poor job of presenting my growing digital media library. I learned about Plex, tried it out on my desktop, and decided to move to it. But at the time, Apple would not permit a Plex app on the Apple TV. Enter Roku. The Roku + Plex combination has been everything I wanted (and more) for TV and Movie content. It’s a little weak for Music content, but to be honest I don’t often use my TV for playing Music anyway. Plex and Roku are both already there on 4k, and Apple is once again making us wait at least another year.
4K is so 2015. We’re watching at least 8K now. Once you see the difference you’ll wonder why you ever used a shoddy 4K screen. Apple is falling behind. Steve would have never allowed this.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/02/lg-8k-tv/
Yes, it was a show-stopper for me. I own the 1st and 2nd gen Apple TV devices, went with a 4K Amazon device this time.
In actual tests people couldn’t tell the difference viewing the same content in 720p or 1080p when viewing on a good 48″ TV from 6 feet away. WTF are they gonna do with 4K? Most people sit 10 feet or more from their TV. Unless you’re gonna sit uncomfortably close to a 5 foot or larger screen, it’s pointless. Yeah 4k is great at the cinema for those who like to sit near the front, on a 30-100 foot screen, but how many people’s homes can fit in a screen like that? That’s like those people who want 1900p for their 5-6 inch phone screen. You mean you can really see 300 pixels in a 1/8th inch square? It’s all a placebo effect. Big numbers sell, & we convince ourselves that the bigger number looks better.
Then, our human eyes can only detect motion at no higher the 24FPS, but for some odd reason 120fps is the big thing. 24fps will be fine as long as it’s not dropping frames. Even 60fps will look like crap it’s it’s dropping a lot of frames, or several frames in a row. The reason 120fps is preferred, is because it could drop a lot of frames before it looks bad. But if it’s dropping a lot of frames, you’re not really seeing it in 120fps, but just enough frames to make the motion look smooth. 120fps is just a theoretical maximum number of what’s possible under ideal conditions (like a scene with almost no motion). Get all 24fps to play without loosing some along the way, & it will look excellent.
They can’t even get 480p to play on most modern devices without dropping frames, or looking like crap in busy or action scenes. Get that reliably fixed, & it will be time to move up in higher resolution. Consumer grade 4k (and h265 HEVC) is pointless if it only looks it’s best on still shots, or scenes where there’s not much motion).
It’s more to do with Apple knowing that their user base will just upgrade when a new product comes out and blindly follow what’s new (or not in a lot of their releases). Remember Apple TV shows more than just content from iTunes and with Netflix having more 4K content by the month (and streams fine on my 4K TV with the Netflix App) I see no reason not even the processor as to why 4K wasn’t in the 4th generation than it’s in their roadmap to release in a 5th generation to get people to throw more money at upgrades to apple products. It’s the one reason I won’t buy and will wait, also certainly in the UK it doesn’t support or have the mass majority of the on demand services (only having BBC iPlayer is another negative) – so I will wait.