Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Nov 5, 2011, 01:03 AM

Anyone thinks this is a possible part of the plan for the project Steve hinted at in his biography? If it's going to cut the cord, is there any reason to limit the resolution to 1080p?

cgc · Nov 5, 2011, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Anyone thinks this is a possible part of the plan for the project Steve hinted at in his biography? If it's going to cut the cord, is there any reason to limit the resolution to 1080p?

No. I doubt the public, who's gone through SD-->HD-->3D upgrade (at least partially), will want to spend money they don't have getting technology that isn't must better than the current HD. I also don't think the satellite or other OTA providers have the bandwidth to support this as they had issues getting HD OTA working on time (kept slipping from ~2001 if I remember correctly). Look at the slowness of adopting blueray...DVD and the HD streaming option are technically inferior to 1080P/blueray but they're in widespread use as the public doesn't see the need for blueray...the tech elite/geeks/videophiles do but not the general public.

Apple may still lead the technological charge but I don't think it will work out and will be a money loser unless they're for computer monitors and not TVs.

subego · Nov 5, 2011, 01:00 PM

1) OTA bandwidth is irrelevant. IIUC, part of the point of this project is its a 100% Internet cord-cutting mama-jamma.

2) As for what people will pay, that's totally dependent on how much it costs relative to other TVs. Isn't the Cinema Display close to 4K? That costs a grand. A good TV costs more than that.

Now, a Cinema Display is smaller than a good TV, but I don't think it's impossible they could make a larger display with slightly less quality (and a somewhat lower pixel density), which is still competitive with other premium brands. They'd also could save money by formalizing the fact that internal speakers are a waste on an HDTV, and it wouldn't need a tuner either.

2a) Content is less relevant than it seems I think, because it would be easy as pie to throw in a decent upscaler. The thing will have a computer inside, why not use it?

At that point, the egg has been laid, the chicken will follow.

Wiskedjak · Nov 5, 2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Now, a Cinema Display is smaller than a good TV, but I don't think it's impossible they could make a larger display with slightly less quality (and a somewhat lower pixel density), which is still competitive with other premium brands.

Of course it's not impossible, but is it Apple?

To be perfectly honest, I have very little interest right now in >1080p resolutions. At distances greater than 10 feet, some studies have found that most people have a difficult time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p ... I can't imagine any possible benefit right now to resolutions higher than 1080p.

I'm far more interested in new ways to acquire, consume and interact with content.
An inexpensive AppleTV will be much better for that than an uberexpensive Apple TV.

mduell · Nov 5, 2011, 06:10 PM

Apple is still pushing 720 ("1.3k"). They need to get to broad 1080 ("2k") support before they move on to 4k.

subego · Nov 5, 2011, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Apple is still pushing 720 ("1.3k"). They need to get to broad 1080 ("2k") support before they move on to 4k.

Excellent point.

subego · Nov 5, 2011, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Of course it's not impossible, but is it Apple?

To be perfectly honest, I have very little interest right now in >1080p resolutions. At distances greater than 10 feet, some studies have found that most people have a difficult time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p ... I can't imagine any possible benefit right now to resolutions higher than 1080p.

I'm far more interested in new ways to acquire, consume and interact with content.
An inexpensive AppleTV will be much better for that than an uberexpensive Apple TV.

There's a screen size vs. distance angle.

I have a 47" TV at 11'. I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I'd be shocked if I couldn't see the difference at 4K. I can definitely see aliasing on fine text at 1080. I can also see aliasing on a retina display.

FWIW, I only have 20/20 vision. 20/20 is not that great. I could use glasses.

The part that strikes me as Apple is they'd be doing what they did for USB and wifi. "This is the future... anyone who disagrees can suck it."

Wiskedjak · Nov 5, 2011, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by subego

I can definitely see aliasing on fine text at 1080. I can also see aliasing on a retina display.

Isn't that more a factor of the quality of the content than of the display?

subego · Nov 5, 2011, 11:13 PM

Q.E.D.

4K content would look better. Even downsampled to 1080p.

cgc · Nov 6, 2011, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by subego

1) OTA bandwidth is irrelevant. IIUC, part of the point of this project is its a 100% Internet cord-cutting mama-jamma.

2) As for what people will pay, that's totally dependent on how much it costs relative to other TVs. Isn't the Cinema Display close to 4K? That costs a grand. A good TV costs more than that.

Now, a Cinema Display is smaller than a good TV, but I don't think it's impossible they could make a larger display with slightly less quality (and a somewhat lower pixel density), which is still competitive with other premium brands. They'd also could save money by formalizing the fact that internal speakers are a waste on an HDTV, and it wouldn't need a tuner either.

2a) Content is less relevant than it seems I think, because it would be easy as pie to throw in a decent upscaler. The thing will have a computer inside, why not use it?

At that point, the egg has been laid, the chicken will follow.

There's not much point to upscaled content, at least it wouldn't justify the cost for a new TV format/resolution. Upscaled DVDs are crap compare to a BlueRay. I looked at some 4K cameras and it's a neat concept but, for now, the public seems content with the content and resolution of 1080P.

subego · Nov 6, 2011, 03:26 PM

The public doesn't know what it wants.

What upscaler were you watching? The PS3 upscaler is really good IMO. I've watched tv shows which have early seasons only available as DVD and later seasons available as Blu-Ray. I preferred the upscaled DVD.

boy8cookie · Nov 6, 2011, 07:13 PM

Define new? We've been shooting 4k for about 2 years. We finish in 1080 because there's no consumer level display for 4k, or even 2k.

The data rate for 4k would need to be at least 60Mbps to look good, not a lot of places can support that (unfortunately), especially when you're looking at multiple streams per home.

Seems unlikely.

imitchellg5 · Nov 6, 2011, 07:23 PM

Since content doesn't ship in 4K, there's no reason to make a 4K TV. Yet.

subego · Nov 6, 2011, 08:04 PM

Absolutely. I wouldn't expect Apple to pull this out of nowhere. What makes it possible in my mind is that they're, in essence, already making 4K monitors, it's just there's an artificial distinction between computer monitors and televisions.

ajprice · Nov 26, 2011, 07:59 AM

There might not be 4k content yet, but if it's an Apple TV with any kind of interface or menu system like it is now, showing the film posters, cd covers etc. they would be in 4k resolution, and when the content catches up the TV is ready. It would be a sort of Retina Display TV.

Waragainstsleep · Nov 26, 2011, 01:06 PM

Not sure the technology is ready for mainstream yet.

Eizo To Sell 36-Inch Display With 4K×2K Resolution For $36,000 | TechCrunch

In the UK, HD satellite content is still only 1080i and broadband speeds are crappy. I don't think the world is ready for 4K streaming just yet.

mduell · Nov 27, 2011, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

There might not be 4k content yet, but if it's an Apple TV with any kind of interface or menu system like it is now, showing the film posters, cd covers etc. they would be in 4k resolution, and when the content catches up the TV is ready. It would be a sort of Retina Display TV.

Oh yea, I buy my TVs to look at film posters and CD covers.

Wiskedjak · Nov 27, 2011, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

... when the content catches up the TV is ready. It would be a sort of Retina Display TV.

By the time the content catches up, the first generation(s) of such a TV will probably be obsolete.

For example, it's already looking like the current generation of Thunderbolt technology will be obsolete by the time more Thunderbolt accessories start catching up.
http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/it...for-ultrabooks

cgc · Nov 27, 2011, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

By the time the content catches up, the first generation(s) of such a TV will probably be obsolete.

For example, it's already looking like the current generation of Thunderbolt technology will be obsolete by the time more Thunderbolt accessories start catching up.
http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/it...for-ultrabooks

Exactly what I was thinking (but too lazy to post). I owe you $1.

subego · Nov 27, 2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

By the time the content catches up, the first generation(s) of such a TV will probably be obsolete.

TVs don't obsolete in the same way. The average time between TVs is 8 years. That's why the manufacturers are trying to convince you 3D is so awesome, and one of the big reasons people think Apple won't enter that arena.

My TV is 4 years old and I'm not sold on 3D. It does 1080p, so it's not really obsolete yet.

Wiskedjak · Nov 27, 2011, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by subego

TVs don't obsolete in the same way.

They will once computer companies start making them.

Originally Posted by subego

The average time between TVs is 8 years. That's why the manufacturers are trying to convince you 3D is so awesome

Exactly. The TV manufacturers are desperately trying to change how long it takes for a TV to obsolete.

Originally Posted by subego

... and one of the big reasons people think Apple won't enter that arena.

Which I agree with. Why would Apple try to sell $2000 TVs when they can have *far* greater penetration with $99 AppleTVs?

subego · Nov 27, 2011, 11:15 PM

4K resolution.

iMOTOR · Nov 28, 2011, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Apple is still pushing 720 ("1.3k"). They need to get to broad 1080 ("2k") support before they move on to 4k.

1080p ≠ 2k

cgc · Nov 28, 2011, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

...Why would Apple try to sell $2000 TVs when they can have *far* greater penetration with $99 AppleTVs?

$2000 isn't that much to pay for a good TV. But if the selling factor is support for content that's not available (and when it becomes available the TV may already be obsolete) then people will probably not be so interested.

subego · Nov 28, 2011, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

1080p ≠ 2k

It's not?

iMOTOR · Nov 28, 2011, 03:33 PM

1080p = 1920x1080

2k = 2048x1556

4k = 4096x2160

ajprice · Nov 28, 2011, 03:40 PM

2k = 2048×1152 pixels
4k = 4096×2304 pixels

List of common resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These resolutions are from Wrongipedia, i don't know which is the 'correct' width'.

iMOTOR · Nov 28, 2011, 04:10 PM

The easy way to think of it is: in broadcast video, vertical lines are referenced, for example 480, 720, 1080lines. Whereas digital cinema has more or less adopted horizontal lines as the reference point, so the variation in vertical resolution in digital cinema is likely the difference between a digital master and a 35mm digital intermediate. 2k and 4k are still really only standards for digital projection and 35mm film scanning. Interestingly, most digital cinema cameras still can only acquire 1920x1080 natively in camera.

subego · Nov 28, 2011, 08:05 PM

Umm... I'm not going to sweat the 100 pixel difference between 1080 and "2K"

Consumers really won't.