The problem is that as far as the UK is concerned broadcast content is still king, in the US it's far more fragmented, so Apple might gain a foothold there, if the price is right. As for HD, there is a demand, and as more receivers featuring Freeview HD become available, and that's almost all now, that demand will ramp up,
As for moving beyond 1080i/p, it will need a huge investment by production which doesn't exist currently, considering the economic climate.
Apple could revamp Apple TV and offer catchup services, that would be a winner at least in European markets. Making a universal digital receiver would be very expensive with all the flavours of DTV globally, hopefully they've learnt the lesson from the New iPad 4G debacle over this type of concern.
It becomes a question of who is going to supply pictures in "4k resolution". Perhaps film studios would be able to scan their films in at 4k, but that's not a huge amount of content to justify what is clearly going to cost an extortionate amount. The broadcasters couldn't afford to supply it at launch, and the BBC couldn't justify supplying it at all if it remained a niche product. Although the BBC and NHK have been testing "super high vision" so they're already looking to the future.
Still - have you actually been to an Apple store and had an assistant show you "retina display"? On the iPad, you can't see any pixels if you hold it "at arm's length". How incredibly useful to everyone that uses their iPad at arm's length. I'd be surprised if Apple took TV down the "megapixel myth" route - "the more resolution the better" - when there's little perceived benefit.
Plus how is 4k going to get into homes? It's not going to squeeze down a standard ADSL line.
Literally the only content that is available with 4K resolution are films - the reason they look impressive at the cinema is purely down to a huge screen and a £30,000 projector.
Blu-ray would be out of the question for holding a 4K film - a two hour film would take up around 140GB, without special features (extrapolated from current Blu-ray bitrates). In this country, streaming would also be out of the question with many people struggling with 720p YouTube videos.
This may be possible in five years' time, but it seems like a silly move for Apple to make.
Blu-ray would be out of the question for holding a 4K film - a two hour film would take up around 140GB, without special features (extrapolated from current Blu-ray bitrates).
You're assuming it would be 4x 40 mbps I think (160 mbps?). Plenty of films are less than 40 mbps on average. Also, they wouldn't have to encode at about 160 mbps. They could encode at a lot lower bitrate if they wanted. Also, just because it's 4x the number of pixels, it doesn't necessarily mean 4x the complexity to encode or 4x the detail. Also, you are assuming they wouldn't use H265 (twice the efficiency of H264), which might be standardised early next year.
Blu-ray would be out of the question for holding a 4K film - a two hour film would take up around 140GB, without special features (extrapolated from current Blu-ray bitrates).
You're assuming it would be 4x 40 mbps I think (160 mbps?). Plenty of films are less than 40 mbps on average. Also, they wouldn't have to encode at about 160 mbps. They could encode at a lot lower bitrate if they wanted. Also, just because it's 4x the number of pixels, it doesn't necessarily mean 4x the complexity to encode. Also, you are assuming they wouldn't use H265 (twice the efficiency of H264), which might be standardised early next year.
The average total bitrate is around 35mbps (which is slightly less than my 40, but a good amount of films exceed that). I didn't know about H.265, but if it could halve the bitrate, that would still be 70GB, which would require BDXL, which currently retails at around £35 a disc - somewhat prohibitive in the near future.
The new codec stipulates that 50-100mbps as the level for 4K videoo. To allow for the highest bitrate, BDXL discs are required.
The Apple magic touch has worked well in certain fields but I think the broadcasters, particularly over the last couple of years, have put themselves in an excellent position in terms of getting their brand and content on the majority of platforms - and I don't see it working for Apple while they have such tight reigns over their products.
Sky and Virgin are established, generally pretty well regarded (certainly the devices themselves) and the broadcasters are getting their catchup services across both. Apple would have to do something pretty special to lure us into having another box, or actually replacing our existing STBs.
In the US there are lots of people 'cutting the cord' to save money - i.e. cancelling their cable/satellite subscriptions and using a mix of OTA digital and Hulu, Netflix or other broadband streaming services. A decent Apple iTV could be a good fit for that market - particularly as a lot of content producers are independent of platforms and channels.
In Europe I think that broadcasters are still more powerful, and OTA is a more people platform.
When it comes to bitrates - SuperHiVision was running at 8k/60p at 140Mbs H264 using 16 1080p H264 encoders about 3 years ago at a very good quality level. 4k wouldn't need close to that. Given that Apple are using approx 6Mbs for their 1080p streams for the new iPad and Apple TV3 I suspect that IF they did 4k they would still be streamed at a <20Mbs rate...
I think I made the cardinal error earlier by being far too conservative.
If this article is anything to go by, 4K may be skipped over for UHDTV (8K). NHK are looking for a 2013-2014 consumer release in Japan and China - a 4K Apple TV would look vastly inferior.
It's being tested at the 2012 Olympics by the BBC with prototype camera equipment, and (in broadcast terms anyway) 8K seems to be the place to go.
Then again, this does seem to bolster the idea that Apple may be pushing ahead for 4K as an interim/internet standard. It's very Apple to have short timespans for obsolescence.