Yesterday, we gave you the chance to speak your mind on Apple’s choice to omit 4K video support from the latest Apple TV — did Apple blow it, or does 4K support not yet matter?
After over 6,500 votes, and more than 125 comments, we have a clear answer: roughly 2/3 of readers said Apple made the right call leaving 4K support out of the Apple TV, as they didn’t care (yet) about the feature. That’s a decisive majority. But a solid 35% of readers opined — often strongly — that neglecting 4K support had cost Apple their business, given that 4K Ultra HD TVs are becoming affordable and more popular.
I hoped we’d see some intelligent discussion, and was thrilled that so many comments actually delivered, including insights on why Apple’s approach was practical — for now. Here are some of the best comments readers posted on each side of the debate…
Representing the 65% of users who said “No, I don’t care about Apple TV 4K support (yet),” the most common thread was that 4K content currently isn’t compelling enough to be a necessity, particularly in a low-end Apple TV, and mightn’t be for 2 years.
4K is just not an issue right now. And I don’t see much need to future proof a $150 item. – Jon C
The reality is that 4K is not “there” yet. [1080p] 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. – Akil Ford
Some of the most interesting comments discussed a compromise — using (much-improved) 4K upscalers built into 4K Ultra HD TVs to make better use of higher-quality 1080p source files.
I had a perfectly fine 1080p Sony XBR television but recently upgraded to a Sony XBR 4K 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. […] Since my TV upscales the content anyway, I’ll take the standard 1080p file that I know will load quickly and stream beautifully. – verizon2828
There were lots of comments regarding the current state of 4K streaming standards and broadband service.
Apple never uses half baked technologies, instead it implements those when everything is ready and polished…. 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. – Gagik Stepanyan
Netflix has a handful of shows and documentaries that support 4K. For me 4K streaming is a no go… 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… It needs time. – taoprophet420
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. – Ondray Wells Jr.
And some of the comments focused on the modest benefits 4K offers users of smaller TVs.
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. – dwsolberg
Not everyone agreed with this, however. Representing the nearly 35% of users who said “yes, I’m skipping it because it can’t play 4K videos,” several readers noted that they own 4K TVs and appreciate the improved visual quality they’re already seeing in 4K streams.
“Daredevil” in 4K on my 55″ Samsung looked much better than in 1080p on my old 46″ set. – Samuel A. Maffei
I purchased a 4k Samsung 40″ Smart TV this month…. 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…. 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…. 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. – sbandyk
For some people, the lack of 4K support is important for theoretical reasons.
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. – davegolden
Mirroring comments we’ve seen on earlier Apple TV articles, quite a few readers expressed anger at what they felt was either planned obsolescence or development inconsistency by Apple.
Anyone who wants to think Apple didn’t include 4K because there isnt enough content yet or it hasn’t taken off yet has their heads in the sand…. 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. – chrisl84
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…. And you have a company which is so secretive that you have no idea whether and when these inconsistencies are [ever] going to be addressed. – Warren Shaw
One thing that’s clear from both the comments and the poll, which again has over 6,500 votes counted, is that while there’s a strong majority that doesn’t care about 4K support yet, a 1/3 minority that cares a lot about 4K — enough to skip the new Apple TV over it — is not trivial, despite what some commenters might suggest.
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. – viciosodiego
That’s just plain wrong. Our poll’s very large sample size, combined with the science of statistics, provide us with numbers that are very broadly generalizable. Even if we only had 4,200 responses, we could say with 99% confidence that the roughly 65% “no” and roughly 35% “yes” split we saw would be accurate to +/- 2% for a much larger population of people. Even today, with 4K penetration at as low of a level as it will be for decades, around 1/3 of people think it’s a major omission in the Apple TV. Leaving it out this time was a reasonably safe bet for Apple, but since 4K Ultra HD TVs keep falling in price, it’s clearly going to be at the top of the next version’s list of features.
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.
I struggled for awhile with what to buy when I purchased a new TV this summer – I was upgrading from a 10 year old 50 inch 720p TV. It ended up between a $1200 70 inch 1080p and a $1800 65 inch 4K TV. I went with the 1080p and have not regretted it (although a 4K Apple TV might have made me do so).
First reason – content. Besides some shows on Netflix and Amazon that are 4K, the vast majority is 1080p – or lower. And while I’m glad to hear that some people have great success with 4K upscaling, I didn’t want to chance it. I watch A LOT of cable, and I have a feeling 4K upscaling of a 720p television channel stream would not have been pretty.
Second reason – accessories. While my TV would have been 4K, my receiver is not capable of handling 4K. So I would have had to plug all 4K devices into the TV (or use the Netflix/Amazon apps on the TV), and then send the audio signal from the TV to my reciever – if the TV could even do that. And then the other 1080p devices would what, still be in my receiver? Nah.
Ultimately I think other upcoming technologies like HDR on television sets will make a bigger difference than 4K. I’m sure my next TV will be 4K, but I want to make sure the content is there first to make it worth it, and I have replaced my receiver and other devices so they can handle it properly without some crazy wiring configurations.
Meant warmly but you said you had your TV for 10 years which is great and looking at the spec it must have been leading edge at the time and hence why you were able to keep it so long. I wonder if you may think that perhaps this time you choose not follow your previous plan and that as a result you won’t be keeping this TV for 5 years let alone 10. Just a thought.
Apple won’t give Apple TV 4K support until they start selling 4K content on iTunes. While ATV can do lots of stuff and play other company’s content (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, etc), ATV still exists for one primary reason – to help sell iTunes store content, namely movies and TV shows. Apple isn’t going to support a feature they don’t sell themselves.
Apple doesn’t have 4K content because it’ll be H.265 encoded and H.265 encoders in chip must be finalized. H.264 4K uses far too much bandwidth for most people.
Look at iPhone 6 specifications in Apple official website
Facetime happens in H.265 encoding, check the web
Avieshek, from everything I can find, FaceTime is H.264. The iPhone 6 spec only mentions H.264 and according to Wikipedia, FaceTime uses H.264. In fact, a search of Apple’s support pages for H.265 yielded 0 results.
I couldn’t find a reply button so here instead @mpias3785
I checked the website again myself, they ‘ve removed the particular specification maybe ‘coz it was in the iPhone 6, there are too many articles from reknown websites like “Appleinsider” just make a google search for “H.265 and iPhone”
Avieshek, That’s exactly what I did. I found the AppleInsider article and the screenshot that showed H.264/H.265 and from searching many sites, including Apple Discussions, it’s doubtful that Apple supports H.265. I’m guessing it was a typo. I was given a large movie file encoded by an H.265 encoder. It took hours and created an enormous file. Until a hardware decoder is included, software is ill equipped to deal with H.265 encoded files or streams.
4K is pointless at this time. In a few years it might be practical, but right now, why bother? Visually, our eyes can’t tell the difference. It’s a physical constraint dictated by our biology. The main difference we notice between a 4K TV and a 1080p TV is dynamic range rather than resolution. The fact that Apple understands this while other companies go with popular trends should be heartening, not be a source of derision. 4K and higher is a great resolution for monitors that are close to our eyes but a waste of bandwidth for televisions that are across the room.
iPhone 6 explicitly supported H.265 for FaceTime calls to other iPhone 6 models upon launch. It is an absolute certainty that it was in Apple’s specs, and FT calls between 6/6+ were markedly smoother at poor bitrates.
Around the time of iOS 9 and iPhone 6s releases, Apple deleted the reference from the 6 pages and didn’t include it for 6s. Or any other device. Something weird was going on.
My BestBuy friend and I were discussing this the other day. Of the thousands of aTV4 he sold at our local BestBuy this season, only 1 customer asked about 4K. The customer didn’t care ultimately. He was superiorly impressed with the Siri functionality and integrated search and the App Store.
Before the shopping season started, my friend was on the side of the “needing” 4K argument. After the shopping season, he decided, Yes he was hoping to see 4K, but why wait buying one? For $150 you can have a superior Smart TV experience and go with a larger “dumb” tv for even cheaper! Wins all around! Go Apple!
FYI – he said no one was too concerned about Amazon not being integrated into the Siri Search. I guess they figured once Amazon gets their act together and puts an app out there, it would mitigate any slight disappointment it brought to the table.
“My BestBuy friend and I were discussing this the other day. Of the thousands of aTV4 he sold at our local BestBuy this season, only 1 customer asked about 4K.”
That is a very important point. Yes BB and others SOLD a good number of 4KTVs but few people were searching for 4KTVs. The sales people convinced them to go with it but it wasn’t something most of them had in mind. I was at BB on Boxing Day and there were a couple of 4KTVs running demos. I couldn’t help thinking the picture was stunning, but in the next instant I realized that there was nothing I wanted to watch that was available in 4K. I suspect a lot of people that bought them this year will be disappointed because the Rockford Files reruns they watch don’t look any better than they did before.
I think most probably there’s an upward bias in the estimation of 35% of people that said 4k was a major omission. For a sample to be representative, sampling method is as relevant as sample size. If the readers of 9To5Mac are more tech-savy than the general population (or than the potential buyers of apple TV), then the sample is biased. I think a large number of the people that buys Apple TV don’t even understand the difference between 1080p and 4k.
Representation and bias could be endlessly debated. But simply asserting that readers here _may_ be more tech savvy than potential Apple TV buyers doesn’t mean that they are, or that such tech-savviness radically skews the results. That said, 9to5Mac has a huge readership, 6,500+ votes is statistically a huge sample size, and a yes/no poll tends to be low in measurement error, as polls go.
Jeremy, I too am concerned that there is sampling bias when polling 9to65Mac readers and extrapolating to the general population or a subset of the general population. Are there any prior polls where there is demonstrable similarity between a 9to5Mac poll and a general population poll? Or maybe better yet, between 9to5Mac readers and those who would consider buying an Apple TV.
You are correct that even if your readers are more tech savvy than the population, that does not *necessarily* skew the results. But unless there is a control to demonstrate that, we simply don’t know. Based on the information in the article, the 9to5Mac results might be representative of the “Apple TV buying population” or it might be hugely skewed.
“Concerned.” Over polling readers on 4K support for Apple TV. Okay, I’ll leave it to you to conclusively prove the negative here. Happy New Year!
Of course results here do not represent the general US population. Heck, the readership here isn’t even fully U.S. And if one thinks this English speaking blog about Apple represent the Earth population in general, that seems even less likely.
Heck, even people who are upset about the 4K issue are probably more likely to answer the poll than others. So I don’t think this poll even polls the 9to5 Mac population all that well.
But it is a useful poll because that 35% number is still a large percentage. It certainly debunks the position that I stated in my comment that 4K is a non-issue. I think Apple made the right decision and that this device can be replaced easily every couple of years (with the prior device systematically relegated to lesser priority TVs or less tech savvy family members). So I stand by my position that this does not need to be future proofed. But 4K is something that the tech savvy early adopters are aware of and interested in.
And finally we don’t know which way this poll is biased. It is easy to say that tech savvy early adopters form this polling group care more about 4K. But perhaps the general U.S. population buys based on simpler spec-based decisions. And maybe “4K” is an easy spec that would be even more compelling to them than to those of us who know its limitations (in particular in terms of viewing distance and bandwidth consumption).
Simply put, the number of 4K TV sets sold and the subset that has such TV AND the streaming bandwidth AND enough content is actually very small.
Add that the H.265 decoding in chip is not yet ready and the 4K H.265 content even a smaller subset (as most of the H.264 4k content end up re-encoded in about a year or two).
It makes sense for Apple to wait until H.265 decode and H.265 content in finalized. When the decoder built into the processors are ready at a reasonable price, Apple will release a next generation Apple TV.
Basically the current H.264 decode of 4K content is not technically practical for most people (even most of those with 4K TVs).
The front camera of iPhone actually decodes in H.265
No it doesn’t!
“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…. And you have a company which is so secretive that you have no idea whether and when these inconsistencies are [ever] going to be addressed.”
THIS!!!! well said, i would have never guessed the atv4 not having 4k looking at their own lineup, however its apple
I think that is the biggest point here — the disparity between their products, and for reasons that make no sense…If you want to say 4K is premature then why offer 4K video on the iPhones? Oops :X
People are so funny! If the iPhone didn’t have 4K recording, you’d yell “fail!” But they DID decide to, and you yell “Fail!”, but only because they didn’t put it in the Apple TV that for some reason they decided not to. (just because You don’t understand Apple’s reasoning doesn’t mean it isn’t legit or nefarious!) Apple deemed it feasible to put 4K in the iPhone. They knew that because it became possible, they wanted people to be able to start recording their home videos in the highest resolution possible. They decided not to do it in the Apple TV (probably for a good reason). Yell “planned obsolescence” all you want, but I’m going to enjoy my lovely new Apple TV and my bigger (cheaper) “dumb” tv for the foreseeable future while you wait a year or more for another one with most of your content STILL in 1080. Real smart folks!
The iPad Air 2 can edit 4K video and the Apple TV users an overclocked version of that chipset. Apple made the choice to not support a technology that is not ready. Apple does not support technologies until they are established, look at 3G and LTE on iPhones.
With Internet infrastructure the way it is and broadband companies having data caps and low speeds streaming 4K is not ready for the mainstream.
Supporting 4K right now is just more future proofing the device. Apple does’t offer 4K video on iTunes and the amount of movies and TV shows in 4K is so small that I don’t think the average person is going to watch all that much in 4K, even if they have a 4K TV. 4K TV’s are a small percentage of the install base of TVs and it’s going to take at least 5 more years until 4K has a big enough install base and there is enough content. I know the processor can handle it, and maybe it’s going to be a s/w upgrade? Don’t know. The thing is that a lot of 4K content isn’t even Native 4K, I think 2015 is the first year Native 4K BluRay players emerged, but there isn’t much Native 4K content, so I just think it’s too premature and anyone that’s selling 4K is kinda just marketing a spec, but a spec that’s still in it’s infancy stage. It would have been a good selling point if they did and I’m sure some people aren’t buying the product solely because it doesn’t list 4K as a spec. You know how some people simply buy a spec, even though they aren’t really using it. It’s like buying a car that does 0-60 in 3 seconds, but never takes their car on a drag strip or race track to even know what it feels like to accelerate that fast. :-)
Juat tell me how do you show u’r twitter handle in wordpress comments alongside u’r name
I’m still struggling with the idea that ANY technology is “future proof”. A broadly utopian concept that has no teeth in the real world because just like a toothbrush, a car or even something as debt infused as a home has a shelf life.
But the other factor you mentioned is incredibly important: there’s NOTHING on iTunes that’s in 4K as I can only imagine the file size must be enormous. To offer 4K content means Apple making servers strong enough with pipes fast enough to deliver that content either by streaming it or for download.
Most 1080p movies from iTunes weigh an average of 4GB. With 3 times the pixels it’s safe to say a 4K film will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12GB. And as others have commented data caps by ISPs are already a hinderance to streaming that much data.
Puzzled how anyone can say 4K isn’t ready. The TVs themselves are already pocket money cheap, and it won’t be long until it’s impossible to buy a non 4K TV. There is a healthy amount of content in 4K on Netflix and Amazon and had Apple not been asleep at the wheel then they could have had 4K content on iTunes too.
As for those who can’t see the difference, then good for you, you’ve saved yourself the need to upgrade. I heard EXACTLY the same arguments when we moved from DVD to blu-Ray, about how upscaled content looked identical and how you would need a TV the size of a wall to see the difference. That argument was lost then and it will be lost this time too. 4K looks phenomenal and the difference is night and day to my eyes, and I’m as short sighted as Mr.Magoo.
Netflix has a handful of shows and documentaries. Less then 10 series is not a healthy amount of content.
Fewer than 10? Perhaps I was misinformed, but I had read that all Netflix internal productions were in 4K, ever since House of Cards series 2. Given the rate at which Netflix produce their own content, I would imagine the tally is considerably higher than ten. I also read the same was true of Amazon, who also now offer 4K movie rentals.
Absolutely agree.
It is easy!
Please list all content available from cable and satellite companies that is currently in 4K?
Now list all possible sources of other 4k video?
So, unless you are saying that all Cable, satellite, off air broadcasts, BluRay Players, iTunes, GooglePlay, Amazon/Amazon Prime video, and Most of the content from YouTube, Netflix, Vudu and other video products are essentially dead because they lack 4k. I can easily say that 4k is not yet ready. I understand the concern about purchasing a new box that doesn’t support something that should be heavily supported in the next 2 years, but I also see very little downside to not having 4k support for what could easily be 2 years.
I personally love my AppleTV 4 and look forward to replacing it with a new version as soon as next christmas.
If you would make a poll for everything and listen to people, there would be no innovation.
Adding a feature that we know is eventually coming isn’t innovation. Adding something that people don’t already know they want is innovation. (At least in my book) For some reason Apple chose not to add 4K. Just because they didn’t add it doesn’t mean they aren’t innovating.
Cool, so only 35% of your readers are clueless.
Or perhaps 35% are videophiles and home cinema fans. Quality matters, always has and always will, but less so for the mainstream. Regardless, 4K is here and won’t be going the way of 3D.
Maybe you should try watching some 4K content before slinging mud in future.
Maybe you should try a a 55″ 4K and HD from 8 foot away and see if you can tell the difference. You can’t.
Let’s be clear about the statistics… that’s roughly 1/3 of 9to5mac readers. It should be clear that people here don’t perfectly represent the market for AppleTV’s!
It’s still obvious that some people are holding off on buying one because of 4K though. Personally, I originally I would wait, but ended up snagging one anyway and I’m enjoying it!
“Our poll’s very large sample size, combined with the science of statistics, provide us with numbers that are very broadly generalizable. Even if we only had 4,200 responses, we could say with 99% confidence that the roughly 65% “no” and roughly 35% “yes” split we saw would be accurate to +/- 2% for a much larger population of people”.
THIS is wrong. While the sample size is correct, 9to5mac’s population is in no way representative of the general larger population.
So, while the original comment is definitely hyperbolic, the application of statistical analysis to prove it wrong is also stretching the truth.
“9to5mac’s population is in no way representative of the general larger population.”
You claim it’s wrong. Prove it.
9to5 Macs readers are likely more interested in tech than the mainstream, and therefore by extension 4K. That’s a logical assumption but without evidence is essentially worthless. Perhaps more could be inferred by the flood of 4K TVs onto the market of late – if they don’t sell, they’ll disappear, as 3D did.
That might matter if “the mainstream” was the larger audience, but Apple TV sales have seemingly been relegated to a decidedly smaller niche. Up until the last year or two, I think it would have been all but impossible to call the Apple TV even close to a mainstream success, and there has been little to no marketing effort to push it to mainstream customers. It was a “hobby” to Apple, and the sales have suggested that it’s substantially embraced by Apple enthusiasts.
Let’s just say, majority in poll came out with a preference for black-coloured iPhones as a matter of choice but in reality the Gold & the Rose Gold versions made the deal
Actually 9to5 readers are the typical target market of an Apple TV. This type of product category is not often found on your average rotary phone using grandma’s purchase radar. Polling tech readers about a techier product is more than appropriate sampling.
No one debates the PlayStation or other gaming consoles doesn’t support 4k and rather introduced as on 512GB spinning hard drives and other ancient techs but Apple is tge target, well, ‘coz it’s Apple
The PS4 and XO are incapable of 4K for two primary reasons – HDMI 2.0 is required for 4K HDCP, and whilst it may have been possible for Sony and Microsoft to incorporate this into their boxes, it would have been seriously early and therefore risky. This rules out 4K Netflix and Amazon. Secondly, gaming in 4K is a near impossibility even now on high end PCs due to the astronomical fill rates required. It is inconceivable for relatively low end GPUs such as those in the XO and PS4 to drive games at 4K.
The criticism of Apple therefore has absolutely nothing to do with targeting Apple, but is in fact a simple like for like comparison between modern streaming boxes offered by Roku and Amazon, both of which are 4K.
Also, please stop spamming this comment section with inane, misspelt, irrelevant questions about Twitter handles.
Now tell me, how do you add u’r twitter handle appearing alongside u’r name in wordpress comments?
It’s an option only available to people with a coherent understanding of English spelling.
Tell me, ‘m I advertising about earning money per hour through facebook, loosing weight in two weeks, some porno links and… Well, why don’t you share u’r process that’s so’ secret’
To whom was I asking, keep watching cartoons
9to5 feature request, more brawl articles haha. That was a fascinating read yesterday.
Oh puh-leeeeeeeeeeze!!!! This is such UTTER NONSENSE! 4K?? LOL… sure. Maybe try getting FULL HD from broadcasters first!
And complete confirmation bias drivel such as “I purchased a 4k Samsung 40″ Smart TV this month…. I have to say, I can see the difference between 4k native and 1080p DVD or 4k upscaled [1080p] streamed content.” is just hilarious! A *40″* 4K screen?? LOL! Really? So I guess you’re not sitting more than TWO FEET AWAY from it, because otherwise there is no humanly possible way that you COULD see a difference.
4K is just a completely nonsensical PR GAG to suck the cash out of your pockets. Bravo. As great as it may be FOR ACQUISITION (i.e. as the resolution it is recorded in) and for POST (i.e. you can e.g. reframe/scale without losing resolution), it’s COMPLETE BS for OUTPUT. Wake up already…
I actually find the results funny – this poll suggests that the majority of respondents don’t think about the future much. If these people’s TV sets suddenly break and they have to buy a new TV, what would they do? But a HDTV costing approx 500-1000 dollars or a UHD TV which can be bought for as little as 500 – a little more for a larger screen (my 52 inch Samsung costed 700). Odds are they will buy UHD and then have a non UHD streamer which has to be upscaled.
Buying ahead is always smart when the thing you’re buying is expensive. It’s not a bad thing to expect apple to support 4K – 4k can usually be improved over time with codec updates which would come as a TVOS update – not very hard at all
People similarly polled for black iPhones and look wh’t happened in reality.. Rose gold or atleast Gold
Thing is people will defend what they have and will do so blindly 70% of the time – even when their argument defies logic or the concept of planning ahead for possible future updates. I for one wouldn’t buy a new Apple TV just months after buying one. I would wait until I get the features that I am looking for placed on the table
It is not unreasonable to look ahead but it is also not unreasonable for Apple to wait when there is virtually no compelling content, nor is there any evidence that there will be substantially more content coming in the next year or maybe 2. This is because streaming 4k content is not widely available and could become even less available in the not to distant future as bandwidth caps become more common. For this reason spending money on High Dynamic Range content or other options that don’t eat up as much bandwidth might be a better path.
I would have liked to see the AppleTV 4 have 4k support, but it was not a stopping point in my buying decision. Once the AppleTV 5 ships, I’ll move this box down to another TV and upgrade my primary. The lack of 4k support means virtually nothing to the quality of content people most people will see most of the time. So it is not a deal breaker for most.
I honestly don’t know what it is with Americans having data caps so often. Is it a matter of price or is it the cable providers not offering unlimited? All companies in europe offer unlimited – even my cell provider offers unlimited data now. I do know that there are American cell providers who offer unlimited netflix, Hulu streaming and also other services separate to their data plans – just use tethering and you’re good cap wise
A good point but I think lots of people don’t consider the Apple TV 4 as “expensive”. For Apple’s standards, it’s cheap! If my TV broke and I bought a new one which was 4K, I could buy a new Apple TV if they updated it to support 4K. What 4K content I’d watch, though, I have no idea.
I don’t feel missing 4K was terrible. It was a huge difference from Apple TV 3 – almost a new product entirely, and I’m really, really happy with mine. Having had a Mac and an iPhone for years (I tried an iPad, but didn’t feel like it added anything, just took away use from my Mac) it’s lovely to have a new Apple product that adds something new to my life. In the UK there are no 4K channels. Apparently there’s 4K content on Netflix, but was unaware of this and don’t feel like I’m missing out. If in two years, that’s a different story, I’ll happily pay another £150 for a newer, faster, Apple TV.
Sky are launching some 4K channels later this year, but there’s plenty of 4K content on Netflix and Amazon right now, plus a mountain load on YouTube.
Lets be honest, especially on an Apple fan site, votes will always go towards Apple’s favor.
I got the new Apple TV to go with my new Sony Bravia 4K 850C mostly for using AirPlay. We are an all Mac/iOS house with many iPhones/iPads/Macs, so Airplay is a must. Another great surprise was the new Apple TV was recognized by the Sony’s Android OS, and I can control the Apple TV via the Sony remote without any configuration. Apple TV just showed up in the Bravia sync list. Also, if I touch the Apple remote, it will automatically switch the TV to Apple TV as the source. The Apple TV is not 4K, but that matters little at this point because all available streaming 4K services, Netfix, Amazon, YouTube, UltraFlix, etc. are on the Sony to begin with. It would have been nice to stream 4K from my iPhone 6s plus, but the 1080p Airplay stream of the 4K footage looks obviously superior to straight 1080p. The iPhone 4K footage copied onto a USB 3 memory stick looks amazing and plays perfectly on the Sony.
The Sony upscaling is so good that the Apple TV interface looks VERY close to 4K. Graphics are easier to upscale, of course. Also the 4th gen ATV is VERY snappy in its operation and responsiveness, making it a pleasure to use.
Another thing, anyone who says 4K does not make a huge viewing difference obviously does not own one, is blind or is crazy. I sit about 6-7 feet from the set, and it is glorious. Even the upscaled content is easily and demonstrably better that 1080p. Non-technical friends watching with me all comment how much better the new set looks… I would love to have one of these 4K naysayer commenters sit in my room and tell me it makes no difference. I had been watching a Pioneer Elite Plasma, had always been pleased with the picture…however the 4K is so obvious it isn’t worth discussing. All the good retailers like Best Buy have a love it or leave it policy, so you really can’t get stuck. I bought a 4K Vizio, did not like it, they came and swapped it out for the Sony for free. I am loving the Sony now.
I am a professional photographer and video guy, and I am used to looking at hi-res medium format images and 4K footage. At work I use a MacPro with a pair of NEC wide gamut 4K monitors, and also the 2015 5K iMac. This said, I wanted to be able to show 4K slideshows of my work, as well as 4K edited video at home.
The Sony, using the free VLC Videoplayer app, plays this content on the TV perfectly from the USB 3 port using a USB 3 memory stick. The uncompressed still images are breathtaking.
And of those 65% then how many would say “Why did they bother with 4K if I don’t currently use it?”
Answer: None.
While I don’t have a need for 4K, the poll is still skewed because people are answering “in defense of Apple”. 4K wouldn’t bring a bigger device or a more expensive price tag. It would simply be a feature. So to claim “Apple is right” is to say “I love Apple so much that I refuse to disagree.”
A small but vocal fraction of our commenters “answer in defense of Apple.”
Broader polls of our readership haven’t shown the same trend. Thankfully.
Someone NEEDS to write a story about Bluetooth SMART coming out next summer that will give 4X the range and DOUBLE the bandwidth, plus faster speed and mesh networking and is going to be a GAME CHANGER for the internet of things. Apple will use make this and Homekit the primary feature along with 4K and a faster chip set for gaming that is fully clocked given the cooling system for the 5th generation coming out next fall of 2016 as previously reported. Here is more about the new bluetooth standard: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151111005390/en/Bluetooth%C2%AE-Technology-Gain-Longer-Range-Faster-Speed
The argument that 4K is better with bigger TVs is moot for us. Our largest TV is 42 inch. We simply have no place for a bigger one. 56 inch, 70 inch, 96 inch, sets simply aren’t gonna be in our house. We still watch from ten feet away so there’s no point in our looking at upgrading our TVs to 4K or getting a 4K AppleTV.
Our internet connection is 5mb/s download and 300GB/month max. There’s no point at us looking at streaming 4K.
We have no source for 4K material in any quantity and I don’t see any one appearing in the next several years.
Conclusion: There’s no point in our buying something, an AppleTV, a TV set, whatever, now to “future proof” it when by the time it becomes an issue the one I buy in 2015 will be either obsolete or worn out and need replacing anyway.
4K may work great for you, but we’re likely five years away from even thinking about upgrading to 4K. Heck, our cable company still hasn’t even completely upgraded to even 720HD yet. They aren’t even talking about 4K.
I’ve got better things to spend my money on.
Apple excluded 4K purely to market/sell the next version. 4K TVs are widely available, content is increasing (every new iPhone can stream 4K recorded content). Anyone denying that is a blind Apple fanboy!
In this article you’ve stated
“roughly 2/3 of readers said Apple made the right call leaving 4K support out of the Apple TV, as they didn’t care (yet) about the feature.”
Thats actually not an assumption you can make from these results because the question was asked:
“Is the new Apple TV’s lack of 4K video support a deal-killer?”
Basically, Apple making the ‘right decision’ and users ‘not caring’ about 4K VS. lack of 4K being a ‘deal breaker’ are two different things. Myself, and based on the discussions that were had many other people, said it was not a deal breaker despite voicing very strong support for having 4K support. I think you’ve actually either asked the wrong question or worded it too strongly, or pulled out the wrong conclusion between yesterday and today.
What your results show is that people have not written off the Apple TV in spite of it only being HD capable while lacking 4K support. You can’t draw any conclusions as to whether 4K is important for the users (except where lack of 4K IS a deal breaker) as these are multi-function devices and the inclusion of apps, gaming etc may compensate the real loss felt by the absence of 4K. Also, those wanting to sit in the Apple ecosystem (particularly with app store support) may not feel they have an alternative anyway in which case they will make do with what they have.
Personally, I can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 42″ TV that’s about 8′ away from where I sit. While there’s a dearth of content, the vast majority of people lack the bandwidth to stream 4K and there’s no physical media standard yet that can fit a full length 4K movie, I don’t see any immediate need for the Apple TV to support that resolution. My opinion may change when H.265 becomes as ubiquitous and supported in hardware as H.264, but until then I only see 4K as a useful monitor resolution.
At normal viewing distances, 1080p surpasses retina resolution rendering 4K video nothing more than a wildly successful marketing gimmick. I commend Apple for not falling prey to this nonsense. People praising 4K are favorably responding to greater dynamic range rather than to the increase in resolution, unless they’re sitting WAY too close. 😜
I think quite a few people are actually seeing better picture in new 4K TVs, but attributing it solely to the 4K resolution by ignoring the substantive lower profile technical advances in the last 5 years. Yes, it’s a better picture, but not due just to being 4K .
I think your views commending Apple may come back to haunt you when they do support it… Your words, ‘At normal viewing distances, 1080p surpasses retina resolution rendering 4K video nothing more than a wildly successful marketing gimmick. I commend Apple for not falling prey to this nonsense.’ So you are saying Apple will never produce 4K because it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick…? When they do what does this mean in your eyes? :-)
Read my first paragraph carefully. You seemed to have missed the last sentence.
I’m surprised more people aren’t making this comment: 4K by itself, is somewhere between an incremental to negligible improvement for most tv sizes and viewing distances. It is the combination of HDR and wide gamut that is a significant perceptible step forward. The latter have been up in the air until recently, and I can totally understand Apple deciding that 4K by itself didn’t justify the technology cost. Especially on iPhones and iPads.
Clearing the smoke on HEVC Advance licensing frees them to move forward without standing in the front of the patent firing line. We should see broad industry support next week behind HEVC / HDR / WCG, especially in conjunction with the blu Ray Ultra launch.
4K is less important to me than the crappy, glossy look of LEDs. What was beautiful four years ago has now shown itself inferior, in comparison to the blacks in a good plasma, or above all to OLED, even in 1080p. The LG 55″ OLED was selling at $1700 this Christmas, and I’m waiting for it to get own to mass market levels. The quality of the image is remarkable. And that’s what most important to me, not necessarily the straight resolution. Gamma, HDR, purity of colors. Sure, 4K will come. The standard for extended colors has not been announced yet, and I hope all you 4K owners can apply that patch when or if it comes, because that’s what would really knock your eyes out.
Assuming people buy a new TV every 5 years, buy 4K TVs since 2015 and buy a new Apple TV every two years, the lack of 4K on the current Apple TV doesn’t even matter to 50% of potential costumers. (My current TV is about 10 years old, and I wouldn’t mind buying a new 150$ device after one year.)
I think a 5 year upgrade cycle for televisions is staggeringly optimistic. Aside from the necessary update when the jump from analog to digital was made, people generally bought a new television when the old one broke. I think a 10 year cycle is far more realistic, if not optimistic. A television is like a refrigerator, taken for granted until it breaks.
A typical Apple style. They want us to buy their next upgrade too. But I don’t think so. I will skip it entirely.
Agree, I find myself getting more and more used to my Samsung Smart TV and using the App’s and streaming 4k content on that. I have 3 Appl TV’s, older ones, and they are consigned to the shelves. I was in the Apple store the other day and just said no point. The longer Apple leave this the more we will all get used to Smart TV’s.
There is a huge central flaw in this item.
4K users are early adopters, and are far more likely to buy an AppleTV and use it than non-adopters. The 4K lobby may only be 33% of respondents, but they are a far bigger group of buyers and users of new/latest gear.
I love my 4K 75″ Samsung, but I will not buy an Apple TV until it fully supports 4K. My TV’s Netflix app, with 4K content, is astounding. I can’t even watch 720p content any more, and 1080 content looks degraded. Why would I buy a degraded product?
This article is such a farce. I have 3 apple TV3’s. They would have all been replaced the day ATV4 hit the market if ATV4 had 4k. No reason what so ever to upgrade. Nuff’ said.
Me to. I totally agree. People don’t seem to realise 4k is not just about streaming programs, we have our own content from our iPhone, GoPro’s, Netflix and photos. Most camera’s these days can capture photos at more than 4k so that covers just about everybody… :-)
“that’s just plain wrong. Our poll’s very large sample size, combined with the science of statistics, provide us with numbers that are very broadly generalizable. Even if we only had 4,200 responses, we could say with 99% confidence that the roughly 65% “no” and roughly 35% “yes” split we saw would be accurate to +/- 2% for a much larger population of people.”. You cannot generalise if parts of the population are missing. Already that only people on this website answered the poll means that the statistics are badly skewed. My opinion is that unhappy people are more likely to write participate to a poll to express their dissatisfaction so maybe they’re more like 5-10% of the whole population that would buy this are negative about the 4K issue.
This was great reading. I fall in to the 35% camp where I will miss this device solely because it does not have 4K. I feel Apple has missed a trick because I am beginning to use my Samsung Smart TV more and more and have all but consigned my 3 Apple TV’s, not the latest version, to the shelves. Had Apple introduced 4K then I would have bought 4 of them. As the comments state the iPhone can record 4K, and we know have iMac’s with 5K displays. I have both, I have a 12 Inch MacBook and iPad Pro as well as a MacBook Pro and Apple Watch so to miss me as a purchaser, IMHO, illustrates this could be a mistake. Also to say 4k is not mainstream is perhaps to definitive, look at the smart phones, Go Pro’s Sony Action cams, TV’s Netflix and so on. More than just a trickle.
I’d welcome understanding of all the people, 65%, who said it was not relevant, how many actually bought the new Apple TV? I think very few, then I wonder how many of the 35% would have, I know I would have. The people with the GoPro’s and so on mentioned above are a large section of early adopters of the Apple TV but like me they are choosing to watch Netflix and their own 4k content, including photos which nearly all camera’s today can produce at 4K plus, on their Smart TV’s. This latter example is missed often when talking about 4k.
Just my two cents worth and as time goes by for media consumption, be it my own or external such as Netflix I find Apple becoming more and more redundant, oh and this is coming from someone highly invested in Apple and in the main a fan, but on this they are loosing me with every product release around this strategy of theirs….
Of all the comments made so far, especially those in the 65% category, who has the new Apple TV?
Not only do I agree with folks enjoying existing upscaling – which is what I get with my Vizio – I halfway agree with folks who said you needn’t stand right next to the set to enjoy the [upscaled] 4K. My wife agreed the picture was so much better a wee bit closer she agreed to me rearranging the living room furniture. Which moved us a few feet closer to our 55″ Vizio. Voila!