Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016

Roku is better.
Amazon Fire Stick is better.
Google Chromecast is better.
No 4K, no buy.

Apple TV sucks. Learn to innovate, Apple.

There we go, all further comments are conveniently summed up right here.

I call ********. When have Apple ever superseded a brand new product inside of 12 months? Click-bait trash.

iPad 4th gen launched 6 months after the 3rd gen.

Will have 4k.

If it's released in 2016, I doubt the next Apple TV will support 4K.
All the factors working against wider 4K adoption today will remain in place in 2016...

* 4K resolution requires a very large (80"+) screen or very close viewing distance to be appreciated
* Most people don't own or have the space for an 80"+ TV
* Mot people don't want to view a 60" TV from 5 feet away
* Most Americans don't have sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K video at good bitrates w/o terrible compression
* Major ISPs in the US are imposing data caps that would make streaming 4K video prohibitively expensive for most
* Very little content is currently available in 4K

Roku is better.
Amazon Fire Stick is better.
Google Chromecast is better.

Apple TV sucks. Learn to innovate, Apple.

There we go, all further comments are conveniently summed up right here.

You're wrong and you clearly don't own one...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I just got a 40" 4K Samsung and the picture quality blows our former 1080p screen out of the water. 4K video looks amazing, and you really only need 25mbps to stream it.

Apple is behind the curve, and we won't be buying a new Apple TV until it has 4K.

If it's released in 2016, I doubt the next Apple TV will support 4K.
All the factors working against wider 4K adoption today will remain in place in 2016...

* 4K resolution requires very large (80"+) screen (or very close viewing distance) to be appreciated
* Most people don't own or have the space for an 80"+ TV
* Mot people don't want to view a 60" TV from 5 feet away
* Most Americans don't have sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K video at good bitrates
* Very little content is currently available in 4K

I call ********. When have Apple ever superseded a brand new product inside of 12 months? Click-bait trash.

From what distance do you view your 40" 4K Samsung TV?

Ahhh, the "chart". It always comes out in arguments against the next resolution not currently able to be played by an Apple TV. Note the copyright date range. If you do a search and hop back to the :apple:TV threads before the "3", you'll find the very same chart, very same colors, etc minus the references to 4K. Back then, it was used just as often... and just as passionately... by those arguing why nobody needs a 1080p :apple:TV while Apple still clung to a 720p MAX.

Then, Apple rolled out the third generation "now with 1080p" and all the people who had slung around "the chart" didn't sling it around to bash Apple for being so stupid to embrace 1080p. Instead it was mostly "shut up and take my money".

Flash forward to the emergence of 4K in just about about everything else Apple offers and the very same chart is updated adding in 4K... and the very same arguments of why we don't need a 4K :apple:TV is being argued while Apple is selling an :apple:TV model that can't play 4K.

When Apple rolls out a 4K :apple:TV as implied by this rumor (and don't we all know it's coming whether this rumor has any merit or not?), will "the chart" be used to bash Apple for being stupid to embrace 4K in an :apple:TV5 or will history repeat? I'd bet heavily on "shut up and take my money" again.

For some reason, some of us will passionately argue against whatever Apple doesn't have for sale right now but then love it as soon as Apple does embrace it. Right now those people have to have split minds because Apple has already embraced 4K in just about everything else. You don't find them bashing 4K in all of the other Apple products, nor do you see much reference to "the chart" bashing against the uselessness of a 4K camera in the iPhone or 4K editing & rendering in iMovie of FCPX, even on iPad Pro. It's just stupid here... in this ONE Apple product line... and only until Apple does roll out a fifth generation "now with 4K" when all this anti-4K, "you can't see a difference", "until the whole internet is upgraded", "until every thing in the iTunes store", "the storage", etc evaporates... overnight... replaced by many of these same people in the "shut up and take my money" line to buy one.

So the 4 was probably just to bide time until they could launch the one they really wanted to launch with the streaming service

I'm 100% positive that the next Apple Tv will support 4k. Factors be damned.

And of course you are right. Apple already supports 4K in just about everything else. It doesn't make sense for their most important product being able to shoot 4K and not have an Apple "just works" way to play that iPhone 4K on a 4K TV. As is, iPhone shoots 4K, Apple products like iMovie and FCPX can edit and render a perfected 4K video Quicktime file, iTunes will store that file just like it stores any other video file. All someone with a 4K TV needs is a 4K :apple:TV to fill the gap between iTunes and their TV. It should be obvious that a next :apple:TV will have the horses to play 4K. IMO, Apple should have made THIS one do it so they could be ahead of most of the CE market. But rumors like this lend some hope that maybe they'll get to market not too far behind most of the other players.

Since usually such posts are attacked by the anti-4K crowd, I'll remind everyone that an :apple:TV that could play 4K doesn't force anyone to buy anything new. Anyone happy with a 1080p or 720p HDTV they already have could still watch 1080p or 720p exactly as they do now. Hardware capable of a little more can easily play back lighter software.

The "but the bandwidth" crowd wouldn't be forced to download only 4K video; just as they do now, they could choose either the 1080p, 720p or SD file option in iTunes.

The "seating distance" crowd would not need to change their seating distance because nothing at all would have to change for them.

The "but games will have more judder" crowd is only right if the game developers choose to target the full 4K rather than target 1080p or 720p if their games are too demanding to avoid judder when rendered for full 4K resolution (if the developers target the right resolution for the demands of their game; a 4K TV will just upscale their 1080p or 720p target... just like 4K TVs upscale a 1080p or 720p movie now).

And the "until there's lots of 4K content for :apple:TV in the iTunes store..." crowd needs to think about what they are saying. Not $1 could be made if EVERYTHING in the iTunes store was available today in 4K for :apple:TV until there are 4K :apple:TVs able to play such content. The hardware must come first... or come simultaneously. It makes no sense for the software to be available for hardware that nobody can yet own.

While I just bought the "4" I look forward to the "5" even if it would launch 15 days after my purchase date (so I couldn't return the "4"). But my own launch guess is next Fall at the earliest, with- or right after- iPads inherit the ability to shoot 4K video.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I just got a 40" 4K Samsung and the picture quality blows our former 1080p screen out of the water. 4K video looks amazing, and you really only need 25mbps to stream it.

Apple is behind the curve, and we won't be buying a new Apple TV until it has 4K.

From what distance do you view your 40" 4K Samsung TV?






Adoption Of 4K Streaming Will Be Stalled By Bandwidth, Not Hardware & Devices http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/01/4k-streaming-bandwidth-problem.html

"With all the talk of 4K that took place at CES, some within the industry are making statements and assumptions about 4K streaming bitrates that simply aren’t accurate. Many are under the impression that 4K streaming will soon be delivered at around 10-12Mbps using HEVC and are also quoting data from Akamai incorrectly. If you look at the HEVC testing that guys like Jan Ozer ('http://conferences.infotoday.com/documents/203/2014SMWest-Workshop-Encoding.pdf') and Alex Zambelli ('http://blogs.iis.net/alexzam/archive/2013/01/28/h-265-hevc-ratification-and-4k-video-streaming.aspx') have done, and look at the data Netflix has presented ('http://conferences.infotoday.com/documents/196/2014SMeast-C102.pdf') around their 4K encoding (Netflix’s current bitrate for 4K is 15.6Mbps), the bitrates won’t get down to 10-12Mbps anytime soon.

The reality is that true 4K streaming can’t take place at even 12-15Mbps unless there is a 40% efficiency in encoding going from H.264 to HEVC and the content is 24/30 fps, not 60 fps. Netflix has stated they expect HEVC to provide a 20-30% encoding efficiency vs H.264, within two years. That’s a long way away from the 40% required to get bitrates down to 12-15Mbps. While 4K can in theory be compressed at 10-12Mbps, this is typically achieved by reducing the frame rate or sacrificing quality. As Encoding.com points out, to date, “most of the HEVC we’ve seen in the market is heavily noise-reduced with high frequency details blurred out to fake the 40% efficiency”. The optimal bandwidth for high quality 4K is higher than 20Mbps.

With Netflix already encoding 4K content at 15.6Mbps today, and with the expertise they have in encoding and the money they spend on bandwidth, they will get the bitrate lower over time. Some observers think it might go down to 10-12Mbps, but that would only be possible down the road and at 24/30 fps, not 60 fps. If you want 60 fps, it’s going to be even higher. But even if we use the 10-12Mbps number, no ISP can sustain it, at scale. So while everyone wants to talk about compression rates, and bitrates, no one is talking about what the last mile can support or how content owners are going to pay to deliver all the additional bits. The bottom line is that for the next few years at least, 4K streaming will be near impossible to deliver at scale, even at 10-12Mbps, via the cloud with guaranteed QoS."