The next Apple TV won't play 4K video

[Tonylu1595]

When Apple’s next-generation Apple TV finally arrives at market later this year, it will bring a groaning board of new features to the company’s dusty set-top box. But it will lack one that some Apple watchers had presumed inevitable: 4K video capability.

Sources in position to know tell BuzzFeed News that the 4th generation Apple TV will not initially support 4K video — a newer high-definition video resolution that delivers a more detailed, immersive picture. “4K is great, but it’s still in its infancy,” said one source familiar with Apple’s thinking.

Enabling 4K video support in Apple’s first major overhaul of Apple TV in three years might seem like a smart bit of future-proofing — particularly given reports that the A8 chip in the guts of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is 4K-capable. But it’s arguably an unnecessary one at this point. There simply isn’t much to watch in 4K—while Netflix and Amazon both added 4K streaming to their video services last year, their 4K offerings remain limited. Nor are there many households with 4K-capable televisions needed to watch it.

Beyond this is the larger issue of economics: Delivering 4K streaming at scale is expensive. With least four times the pixels as mainstream HD video, 4K video requires a lot of bandwidth and more powerful compression technologies to transmit it expediently. It also requires speedy consumer broadband connections to support its delivery. And right now the number of 4K-capable households is piddling. Akamai’s last State of the internet estimated that just 19 percent of US connections to its network were at the speeds of 15 Mbps or above needed to handle 4K streaming. That's connections, not households

“The additional cost to shoot, store, encode and deliver video in 4K, when compared to HD, is huge,” Frost & Sullivan principal analyst Dan Rayburn told BuzzFeed. “No one wants to talk about it, but going from Netflix’s average 3Mbps stream to their 4K stream at 16Mbps is very expensive. That’s why it’s said it will offer “limited” content in 4K for a long time. 4K is many, many years away from being adopted at critical mass.”

 

I still think they should make it 4k ready or atleast be able to handle 4k when it comes out. It's not like people are going to buy new apple tv's every generation so it would have been nice to have support for it early on.

 

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/05/no-4k-in-next-apple-tv/

Original Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/new-apple-tv-will-not-support-4k-video-streaming#.lxDDZOjKbl

[Enderman]

“The additional cost to shoot, store, encode and deliver video in 4K, when compared to HD, is huge,”

 

well the tegra X1 can do TWO 4k 60hz video streams encoding/decoding...

[XTankSlayerX]

I didn't expect it to be 4K ready...

[Tonylu1595]

I didn't expect it to be 4K ready...

As the apple TV hasn't been updated since March 2012, there were a lot of people expecting 4k.

[thekeemo]

its not like almost every android device that supports DLNA or has a mini hdmi connector cant do more than this could already...

[TheSLSAMG]

well the tegra X1 can do TWO 4k 60hz video streams encoding/decoding...

Tegra X1-integrated devices also cost a lot more than Apple's $99 price point, considering Shield costs $200 and it's other use is in the automotive computer field so far.

[theelitegamer]

4K is too expensive right now. It's like DDR4, yeah it's faster and all but when you compare with what you get and what you got to give up. You'll stay with DDR3 till DDR4 is a most or more viable. I feel the same with 4k. It's a nice thing to have but, what you got to do to actually have it is alot. I think Apple was actually thinking this time. Not alot of people have 4K. Most don't even know what it is.

[Victorious Secret]

I didn't expect it to be 4K ready...

 

Why would it? 4K TVs still aren't that cheap, 4K broadcasts don't exist yet, 4K streaming will BREAK most peoples ISP connections. 

 

Enthusiasts have such stupid expectations. 

[Enderman]

Tegra X1-integrated devices also cost a lot more than Apple's $99 price point, considering Shield costs $200 and it's other use is in the automotive computer field so far.

so 200% more for 400% better performance?

because $200 is twice the price of $100 and 4k is four times more than 1080p...

IMO its worth it

[TheSLSAMG]

so 200% more for 400% better performance?

because $200 is twice the price of $100 and 4k is four times more than 1080p...

IMO its worth it

To you, sure.

 

400% better performance based on what? 4K pushing 4x the pixels and equating that to processing power? That's not really too accurate.

 

You don't even know what the specs are, and an important point is made in the article. There isn't much 4K content out there and many users don't have the internet to back up 4K content streaming. In the end, an Apple TV is for the same basic thing as a Chromecast, except an Apple TV can operate independent of other devices and has Apple's content backend. SHIELD and the Apple TV are for different markets, comparing them doesn't make a lot of sense since SHIELD is expected to be a console-replacement while Apple TV is for making a dumb TV "smart."

[XTankSlayerX]

Why would it? 4K TVs still aren't that cheap, 4K broadcasts don't exist yet, 4K streaming will BREAK most peoples ISP connections. 

 

Enthusiasts have such stupid expectations. 

My thoughts as well.

 

The world isn't ready for 4K yet. right now its a luxury instead of a commodity

[Enderman]

To you, sure.

 

400% better performance based on what? 4K pushing 4x the pixels and equating that to processing power? That's not really too accurate.

 

You don't even know what the specs are, and an important point is made in the article. There isn't much 4K content out there and many users don't have the internet to back up 4K content streaming. In the end, an Apple TV is for the same basic thing as a Chromecast, except an Apple TV can operate independent of other devices and has Apple's content backend. SHIELD and the Apple TV are for different markets, comparing them doesn't make a lot of sense since SHIELD is expected to be a console-replacement while Apple TV is for making a dumb TV "smart."

did you not watch the nvidia events? the point of the shield is to make the BEST smart tv...

thats the entire point, making a smart tv

[TheSLSAMG]

did you not watch the nvidia events? the point of the shield is to make the BEST smart tv...

thats the entire point, making a smart tv

Did you watch it? I watched it live. The device has three selling points.

• To make dumb TVs Smart
• To be an Android console
• To be a PC gaming hub (through GRID servers and GameStream)

Two of those points encompass gaming, which is more or less what it was built for. If they were building a Smart TV und a Smart TV only, then they would have gone with something cheaper and less powerful...

[cesrai]

Just like other members VS as example pointed out, why would it support 4K ?? not much content, 4K TVs are expensive, etc..

[Dietrichw]

Is this saying that the hardware does not output 4k video or that 4k content won't be available to stream at launch. To me it sounds like the streaming won't be 4k

[snowComet]

Maybe as it is not supported at launch, they could update the firmware to support 4k streaming in the future? since A8 and A8X is already 4K-capable??

[Victorious Secret]

Is this saying that the hardware does not output 4k video or that 4k content won't be available to stream at launch. To me it sounds like the streaming won't be 4k

 

Apple generally doesn't include crap for the sake of including crap. Then again, apple is stubborn as hell about still not including Blu Ray drives (Then again, they ditched drives a long time ago)

But 4K is one of those clearly defined things. Consumers don't really need it. Broadcasters sure as hell aren't ready for it. ISPs are already crying about it. CDNs will murder each other as well. Why? 4K is genuinely demanding to stream, if you aren't pulling a 30 down connection at least, have fun streaming good 4K from YouTube much less a higher bitrate source. 

I want 4K because I have a 130" screen. But theres no blu rays. Or really much in the way of streaming. Gaming at 4K is still stupid. I don't have terrestrial feeds at 4K. I'm just starting to film my own stuff in 4K, but thats a pain in the ass to edit and showcase so we are left with the very real reality that 4K is just a ego measuring pipe dream for another few years, just like 1080p was back at the turn of the millennium. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Why would it? 4K TVs still aren't that cheap, 4K broadcasts don't exist yet, 4K streaming will BREAK most peoples ISP connections. 

 

Enthusiasts have such stupid expectations. 

Yeah but whose to say when 4k will become more common place? It might happen next year for all we know when a good amount of people have 4k TVs. And this won't support content for them.

 

As far as we know it might ramp up later this year and then Apple will have to release another Apple TV sooner than they should have.

 

Just my thoughts.

[EcoBoost]

No, they shouldn't make it 4K ready out of the box IMO if it's so much more expensive. Most people don't have 4K capable devices to stream things off of so it's not like they'll lose anything substantial.

 

Low price or 4K? I'll take low price for now. Update the firmware later when 4K gets more popular (not anytime soon)

Meanwhile Apple is starting the rave of 5K?

[Ertman]

Do we really have a true streaming standard for 4k? Wasn't there something new being developed over in Europe with the backing of a bunch of companies including intel? I think NCIX netlinked daily touched on this. It is also addresses some bandwidth concerns.

Supporting 4k is great, except if you bet on the wrong tech.

[AxelRantila]

4K is too expensive right now. It's like DDR4, yeah it's faster and all but when you compare with what you get and what you got to give up. You'll stay with DDR3 till DDR4 is a most or more viable. I feel the same with 4k. It's a nice thing to have but, what you got to do to actually have it is alot. I think Apple was actually thinking this time. Not alot of people have 4K. Most don't even know what it is.

Well, DDR4 currently only exists on a prosumer platform and therefor has low demand. I would actually be a bit surprised if Intel had not moved on permanently to DDR4 by the time Cannonlake comes around

[Sakkura]

No 4K makes sense in 2015. The question is when Apple will update the Apple TV again. If it takes them 3 years again, Apple might be late to the 4K party when 2018 rolls around.

[TroubleKlef]

Shame as Apple's market power would create a domino effect if they included 4K. All other streaming boxes would have to include it to compete and customers would begin to demand 4K TVs in which TV manufacturers would create supply, satiate demand, and bring prices down.

 

On the other hand, ISPs are still a very big problem especially with data caps. I'm not sure how advanced compression has gotten but no doubt 4K streaming would devour a monthly data cap even with average use.

[LukaP]

Yeah but whose to say when 4k will become more common place? It might happen next year for all we know when a good amount of people have 4k TVs. And this won't support content for them.

 

As far as we know it might ramp up later this year and then Apple will have to release another Apple TV sooner than they should have.

 

Just my thoughts.

No, you git  

If this is powered by an A8X then all they will need is a firmware patch that adds 4K60 support and that is all. (if this thing has a HDMI2 port, otherwise 4K30)

[patrickjp93]

Apple generally doesn't include crap for the sake of including crap. Then again, apple is stubborn as hell about still not including Blu Ray drives (Then again, they ditched drives a long time ago)

But 4K is one of those clearly defined things. Consumers don't really need it. Broadcasters sure as hell aren't ready for it. ISPs are already crying about it. CDNs will murder each other as well. Why? 4K is genuinely demanding to stream, if you aren't pulling a 30 down connection at least, have fun streaming good 4K from YouTube much less a higher bitrate source.

I want 4K because I have a 130" screen. But theres no blu rays. Or really much in the way of streaming. Gaming at 4K is still stupid. I don't have terrestrial feeds at 4K. I'm just starting to film my own stuff in 4K, but thats a pain in the ass to edit and showcase so we are left with the very real reality that 4K is just a ego measuring pipe dream for another few years, just like 1080p was back at the turn of the millennium.

It is pointless to include Blu-Ray when its successor is just around the corner.