Apple Pushes Studios to Offer 4K Content for Upcoming Apple TV at Lower Prices, Report Says (bit.ly) 76
Apple appears to have ambitious plans to attract people's interest in its streaming device Apple TV, according to a new report. An anonymous reader shares a report: The company, which is widely expected to refresh the Apple TV next month to bring support for videos in 4K, is in talks with Hollywood studios to bring Ultra HD content at lower prices, WSJ reported on Tuesday. Apple is widely expected to unveil new iPhone models - including one called the iPhone 8 - next month. The publication reports that the iPhone-maker is pushing Hollywood studios to agree to sell Ultra HD editions of movies at $19.99, the usual price the company charges for full-HD of new movies. But Hollywood studios, which have seen a significant portion of their business go to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, are pushing for higher prices. Hollywood studios, according to the report, are asking Apple to increase the asking price from proposed $19.99 per movie by $5 to $10.
Netflix (Score:4, Insightful)
Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope Apple stands firm on this because the average person is not going to pay more for UHD content to be streamed.
Streams are not as good as buying the Disc, and doubly so for 4K and beyond, this is due to the compression. Every time we get an increase in resolution it has come at a cost of the color fidelity because we're still doing 4:2:0, so all increasing the resolution does is make the slices smaller so we don't see the compression artifacts as readily. But what Cable and Streaming sources (eg Netflix) have done is scaled back the compression from what is supposed to be a 25Mbit stream to a 6Mbit stream. 4K at 6Mbit is gross. Unless we're going to be permitted to download UHD Blueray quality, paying BD prices for non-BD content is just not going to happen. Instead of buying 10 movies per year, it will just be cut back to 5, and the rest will be "watch on netflix"
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of nonsense is that? Do you understand how video compression works? Take a 4K picture, compress it to a 10KB JPEG and then "upconvert it" to 4K again, it will look like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of nonsense is that? Do you understand how video compression works? Take a 4K picture, compress it to a 10KB JPEG and then "upconvert it" to 4K again, it will look like shit.
Some video editors will take 4K (or higher) video, downscale to 1080p for editing, and then upscale to 4K. Although 4K video is becoming common, not everyone has a computer that can handle a 4K workflow.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Paid for 4K camera that you do not need
2) Waste time downscaling to 1080p
3) Lost all the advantage of images in larger scale
4) Waste time upscaling
Linus Tech Tips uses this workflow for their 4K cameras (see video). That was two years ago. They now have 8K RED cameras ($140K each) but probably still use the same workflow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NFmpJNvd4k [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And this gives us gems like this one [youtube.com].
Re:Greed (Score:4, Informative)
The 6 Mbit stream is compressed; it gets upconverted to a 25 Mbit stream before decoding. Most people will not be able to sense a difference
If you have 20/100 vision and don't wear any glasses, maybe. Otherwise you'll definitely notice a difference in relatively standard 1080p material visually, and don't forget the sound. A TrueHD stream itself is roughly 5Mbps. Converting to Dolby II 5.1 without too much loss results in about 1.5 Mbps, so your 6Mbps stream is now 4.5 Mbps video, which is about the limit for non-artifact simple cartoons with simple color palettes and stationary backgrounds. Movies with panning views including complex landscapes will easily eat up 12Mbps at a reasonably compressed rate with minimum artifacts, not including sound. Compare that with Cable (TWC does about 5-6 Mbps) or U-verse (6-8 Mbps) and you'll see why OTA (9-13 Mbps) is a better picture even though it's 1080i. All of those use DD 5.1 sound at most, so you lose 1-1.5 Mbps to sound. BluRays are between 28-35 Mbps and many have TrueHD or equivalent lossless sound. And yes, there is a different between TrueHD and DD 5.1. Of course, that makes no difference if you're only using the stereo TV speakers.
I only mention all that to contrast it with the requirements of 4K video, which has 4 times the potential content. Yes, H265 does a better job at compressing it, but you can compress 1080 with H265 as well, and in fact, my limit numbers are based on H265, so it's an apples to apples comparison. The 4K disks run about 70GB per movie. If you think you can compress that down to an acceptable 6 Mbps stream, well, I have some ocean front property in LA to sell you, just come at low tide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
$25 for a 4K movie... seriously?! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
$10 is way too much for a movie. Maybe $5 for a good one a few months after release, in 4k, mkv format.
Netflix is only twice that for as many movies and TV shows as I like for a month. Okay, it's streaming, but your DRM infested crap will surely commit suicide one day anyway, or I'll ditch Apple and it won't play on Kodi.
Re: (Score:1)
4K isnt "dead" right now a 4kTV is very marginally more expensive than an HD TV with the prices coming down all the time. 4K is the new HD - the thing is its not enough of an improvement to force people to upgrade. But if I need a new TV because mine is broken or whatever, then I would get a 4K one.
How different to book publishers? (Score:2)
How is this different to when the book publishers demanded Amazon, Apple, etc sell digital copies of books at a certain price?
The publishers lost a lawsuit and were required to pay consumers back after that for price fixing. I can't see Hollywood faring much better if they force streaming companies to sell digital copies of films for a certain price.
Ironic (Score:1)
$/resolution is becoming asymptotic? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4K really only "pops" with displays of 100" diagonal or more. Frankly, it would take a technological change from "flat screen" to "roll-up wallpaper display" to practically make a move to 100+ inches (the same way no CRT's lost practicality at 40 inches, flat screens are going to be impractical to deliver/install at 90+ inches).
Re: (Score:2)
4K really only "pops" with displays of 100" diagonal or more.
Haha. BULLSHIT.
Go to the store and look at some of the 50- and 60-inch 4K UHD televisions. They look amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to the store and look at some of the 50- and 60-inch 4K UHD televisions. They look amazing.
Yes, a 4K 60" TV looks amazing at a distance of 1.5 picture heights (~62 inches) in the store.
When you take it home and watch it from 10 feet away (120 inches, which is the average American distance to a TV in the living room), you don't see much more than HD resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and we have better ways to spend money than to upgrade for only an incremental benefit.
The wonders of technology are that you won't need to. When your old TV dies and 4K is standard you're at no real loss. Incremental improvements may be a reason for not upgrading, but it's never a reason to not develop technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally resolution is not interesting, but I can't wait for my TV to die so I can buy a lovely OLED or QLED display with its incredible colour and dynamic range.
That is still something that makes me go "wow" when I walk through an electronics shop.
Re: (Score:1)
Netflix showed competive pricing draws numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Holywood just never learns. You cannot price digital content even higher than physical media. People will and do vote with their wallets. This d-move will be followed by much wailing about how "piracy is killing the movie industry". Yes, if you spell piracy G R E E D, then there's a case to answer.
Just a waste of money (Score:2)
Over the past 10 years, I have purchased nearly $10K worth of entertainment including shows/movies/music... but only chose SD videos, not even HD. SD video may seem a little bit old, but still high quality enough for my family to enjoy. The additional cost of 25% on HD wasn't necessary. Now they wanted to add another 20% for 4K. I don't think so.
The difference between SD/HD is very visible, but
Re: (Score:1)
How visible is it on my 40" TV from 8 feet away?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
This site lets you calculate for yourself how much you might benefit: https://referencehometheater.c... [referencehometheater.com]
The overall trend seems to be that we can stil
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
I've heard people say similar things to rationalize why no one needs over 60 Hz or over 60 FPS in a video game. "The human eye can't distinguish a difference beyond 60 FPS! There's a reason films are shot at 24 FPS!" However, as a long-time competitive Counter-Strike player, I can tell you the difference between 60 Hz and 100 Hz, or 100 Hz and 144 Hz is night-and-day. I actually kept a CRT monitor until 2012 because it could output at 100 Hz -- I had tried switching to LCD before then, but always returned
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a more "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at ten feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: that there was no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
That's actually not far off from the truth - at a 10' viewing distance, on a 32" TV, the improvement going from 720P to 1080P will be marginal. It's a pretty easy hypothesis to test - do a double blind study. Across a wide variety of human experience (wine, audiophile products, etc) you'll find that people are willing to pay far more for a "premium" product, but in an actually fair test, the supposedly superior qualities can't be reliably distinguished from lower priced items. I'm more inclined to trust the
A shocking twist of Apple Marketing... (Score:2)
"Apple is widely expected to unveil new iPhone models - including one called the iPhone 8..."
Wow, so it's gonna be called iPhone 8?
And here I thought the company whose marketing hasn't changed in a fucking decade was gonna call the new iPhone "Banana Fandango"...
Re: (Score:2)
No, the new phone isn't going to be called an iPhone 8...There is no way on god's green earth it will be called the iPhone 8. They are more likely to just drop numbers entirely.
Ironically, my sarcasm was focused on the fact that I don't see any other name being chosen. History tends to validate that, and since the whole numbers thing was around when the almighty iSteve was in charge, they'll probably stick with it. After all, we have the iPhoneX to look forward to, which would mirror exactly what they did with other marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, there is always money in the banana fandango.
What about ISP's? (Score:1)
Can Apple push Comcast to remove their totally unnecessary data caps so we can stream 4k video without worrying about the meter running in the background?
Fundamental Problem with Hollywood (Score:3)
If the story isn't worth $20, more pixels sure isn't going to sell it... Neither will a 3rd dimension.
Selling AppleTVs vs selling movies... (Score:3)
There are clearly some conflicting agendas, here. Apple wants the $20 price point, because that's already the target price for most new movies; thus, they would be able to justify contract language which allows them to upgrade recent movie purchases which were made in that price bracket to the new 4K versions, making it a very attractive bullet point during their pitch for the new AppleTV. I'd even wager that the stage script has already been crafted; perhaps something along the lines of, "So you might ask, how much am I going to pay for all this new 4K content? I have good news! If you've purchased new movies from us recently, you probably already have some 4K movies, just waiting for you to download!"
In contrast, the movie studios all want to sell you brand spanking new 4K copies of all of the movies you already bought... at $25 to $30 a pop. "Upgrade? What on earth are you talking about? Who cares if you already bought the 1080p version? That was yesterday -- this is today! Either buy the 4K movie or don't, and that's my final offer. Geez -- what do these people think... that us movie studios are just made of money?"
Ummmmm... well, actually...
720p is perfectly fine (Score:4, Interesting)
1080 is okay, but I wouldn't pay more for it over 720. 4k? Every demo I've seen of it it looks like someone has put a video through an extreme sharpening filter. It doesn't look natural.
Why set prices? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are good and bad movies same price ? Let studios decide.
We've been letting studios decide the difference between a good movie and a bad one for decades now, and it's clearly not working out.
Don't see the point (Score:1)
How many people are actually using full 1080p over the air HDTV broadcasts? Most are getting 1080i or 720p, and most cell carriers downgrade you to 720p nowadays.
Fix that first.
Pay extra for upscaled 2k movies? Why? (Score:2)
So why pay extra for a 4k upscaling that your player or TV can do just as well?
I for one am willing to pay for actual, high-bandwidth 4k content - of which very, very little is on offer.