Nothing ludicrous about it. Currently I suspect many people won't use it, as they would place more value on additional storage and shorter upload times, than they would on any additional quality that they are currently unable to really benefit from.
I know you seem to have a very egocentric view of the world, but difficult as it might be to believe, not everyone would do the same as you.
If that is the criteria you claim for why it is not being used it will never become a standard or "norm" as you like to say. Those "restrictions" will not go away for 4k files will always be significantly larger than HD thus it will never be never accepted as standard - according to you
However back in the real world where embracers of new technology actually live, it will become the standard and your whole nonsense as to why people don't use it is is just more (I have an iphone therefore don't need it) bull.
Funny how iphone users have been forced to become the ludites of the tech industry
If that is the criteria you claim for why it is not being used it will never become a standard or "norm" as you like to say. Those "restrictions" will not go away for 4k files will always be significantly larger than HD thus it will never be never accepted as standard - according to you
However back in the real world where embracers of new technology actually live, it will become the standard and your whole nonsense as to why people don't use it is is just more (I have an iphone therefore don't need it) bull.
Funny how iphone users have been forced to become the ludites of the tech industry
Regular consumers not recording in 4K on their smartphones as of April 2014 does not make them a luddite.
You also seem to be assuming technology stands still. Even five years ago recording in HD would have posed the same problem, with the same trade offs as phones wouldn't have had anywhere near 64/128GB of storage.
That response actually akes no sense at all, you have just written random words that you think bear resemblence to my point.
I said iphone users not 4k users have becoe ludites, not sure if your ability to read and interpret is actually up to the required standard required here.
I am assume technology stands still, how does that make sense in any way you only base technological advancement on the snails pace apple drip feed it to you.
64/128gb for HD, there is soething wrong with you clearly.
The problem with your ludite view as deonstrated by this post is that when you have nothing else to say you simply invent answers to made up questions, most odd
This whole thing started when I said that I didn't think that 4K was becoming the norm yet..
Everything has to start somewhere though, and as I said, the next iPhone will be in use for at least two years by most customers (so that's three years from its release date, for those who will buy one shortly before the 6s comes out).
As such, Apple has to be thinking further ahead than its customers are. But history shows that Apple likes to wait (and keep customers waiting) on certain things, like 3G, a camera flash (even a decent camera in the first place) so perhaps it's not that surprising.
Samsung, Sony and others obviously think that adding 4K now is a good idea, which will help sell TVs because people now see the 4K logo on their phone and think 'Hang on, I can't fully enjoy the quality'. Likewise when they begin to see 4K offered on Netflix and want to enjoy films and TV series' at that quality.
I think UltraHD/4K will become something that is pushed heavily this Christmas (far more than it was last year) and we'll see cheaper 4K sets from the cheaper manufacturers. Then next year, 4K will probably be the norm on most TV sets of a certain size - or the year after next at worst. All the time the iPhone 6 will be in the hands of millions of users.
Thing is, the chipset will handle 4K with ease, so it's now a storage thing. And something Apple could fix by adding a card slot. As simple as that. Done.
But it makes too much money selling the higher memory capacity models, so will it favour that over convenience to its customers?
Sure - I haven't disagreed with any of that. I just said that 4K wasn't the norm yet, but that it almost certainly will become the norm.
I think the biggest drivers of 4K will be Sky, Virgin and the BBC.
I'm not sure actually. Freeview is unlikely to offer 4K anytime soon (it still has hardly any HD channels) and Sky and Virgin will also need to sell new boxes to every customer, plus find the space to broadcast 4K channels.
Sure, it will happen one day, but I think this is when we'll see the likes of Netflix, Amazon Instant, and possibly Sky via broadband, offering 4K and having the ability to deliver much more than via fixed channels - and much quicker. And streaming video is very much becoming the norm for a new generation!
Indeed, even Apple and Google are perfectly positioned to deliver 4K content. Thus Apple has an incentive to offer 4K devices (iPhones, iPads and of course the computers and Apple TV).
I don't know what the minimum broadband speed would be for 4K, and that is obviously going to be a factor, but assuming you can stream a lower quality 4K feed at around 10Mbps (I'd imagine that's perfectly possible) then most people would be able to get it - even if they might have to upgrade their service. And slower speeds might still allow for 4K video with the usual pre-buffering.
I'd even expect my device to be capable of feeding my TV with 4K content. Thus, my Netflix app on the Z2 could drive my TV. It supports the new MHL standard to output 4K via the USB/HDMI cable after all.
Given I'm on Three with unlimited data, I could - in theory - watch 4K content using mobile data right now - and that's months before Apple has even launched its new iPhone.
As you say.
I don't expect sky, virgin etc to have much input into 4k for a while yet, except in very selective ways. They don't braodcast in 1080 yet, braodcasting space being the real problem with higher resolutions.
The major way to watch 4k initially will be through steaming, Netflix etc (15mb recomended miniumum speed according to them) So it is perfect steaming direct to your 4k TV or watching on the next generation of mobile screens.
Again something Apple have largely dropped the ball on again so far, as they will be unable to stream to Tv's direct and at all without a new Apple TV (if it supports 4k in future generations).
I would hope a new Apple TV would support 4K. In fact, besides the rumour of it being able to run iOS apps and come with a better controller/gamepad for gaming, it would be something that gives Apple an edge over the other boxes (do any other similar boxes, e.g. Roku, support 4K? I don't think so).
If they DO add Ultra HD support then it will make it even more crazy not to have 4K support on the iPhone for recording 4K content of your own. The next iPhone won't be until late 2015, so it has to do it this year in my opinion.
By year end, when Qualcomm will have its Snapdragon 805 SoC in many devices (Note 4, Xperia Z3 etc) and next year when we will have Snapdragon 810 (64 bit) - as well as whatever the others do, Apple will be way behind if it has to go for most of 2015 with a device that isn't capable.
So it has a dilemma here. Add some form of memory expansion, or just sell 4K as this amazing thing but only really of use if you pay £100-200 more for a 64 or 128GB model?
If anyone can get away with it, Apple can, but I suspect that people are far more critical now. People don't just accept what the likes of Tim Cook says as gospel, as they would have done with Steve Jobs. If Jobs said something, it had to be right. If you thought different, you were wrong.
Now people can look at Apple and think it has made yet another mistake, and over time more and more people will look elsewhere.
I've got an Apple TV, but the support for it has been terrible - and none more so than in the UK. It has become so outdated and antiquated that it now sits in a drawer, and even when I've asked friends and family if they'd want it so it wasn't just sitting idle, I've had polite refusal because unless you're a big iTunes user, or use Netflix, there's pretty much sod all else you can do with it. I'd have hoped and expected to get support for most, if not all, of the streaming services out there by now. If Apple was serious about TV it would have pushed for this.
As you say.
I don't expect sky, virgin etc to have much input into 4k for a while yet, except in very selective ways. They don't braodcast in 1080 yet, braodcasting space being the real problem with higher resolutions.
The major way to watch 4k initially will be through steaming, Netflix etc (15mb recomended miniumum speed according to them) So it is perfect steaming direct to your 4k TV or watching on the next generation of mobile screens.
Again something Apple have largely dropped the ball on again so far, as they will be unable to stream to Tv's direct and at all without a new Apple TV (if it supports 4k in future generations).
There are very few 4k streamers available right now as 4k is very much in it's infancy and they would need to have the HEVC codec in order to fully support 4k streaming (going by Netflix 4k support for TV's so streamers should be no different)
Roku, Apple, Amazon, Western Digital are all in the same boat i.e no 4k support whatsoever so I would not say Apple have dropped the ball as it's not really commercially viable to produce a 4k streaming box currently.
There are very few 4k streamers available right now as 4k is very much in it's infancy and they would need to have the HEVC codec in order to fully support 4k streaming (going by Netflix 4k support for TV's so streamers should be no different)
Roku, Apple, Amazon, Western Digital are all in the same boat i.e no 4k support whatsoever so I would not say Apple have dropped the ball as it's not really commercially viable to produce a 4k streaming box currently.
True some early 4k TVs are unable too as well
I was referring to the ability to stream direct from a phone,
SJ having a "THERMONUCLEAR" war on Android went on to refer to the "struggle" against android in internal emails as a "holy war" - he certainly had a flair for the dramatic over egarretaion.
In the same emails it seems he expressed the need for ios to catch up with android worried they were falling behind - citing "notifications, tethering, speech…" as areas for improvement. Apple is in danger of hanging on to old paradigm too long with Google and Microsoft further along on the technology
Seems Apple realised early that they were way behind Android
He also notes the need to make Apple ecosystem even more sticky, hmmmm
Whilst Putins mates have just taken over Russias biggest social network (sacked founder believed in free speech) Apple win over hearts and minds their way.
:rolleyes:
It's not like they're pretending that so much of their business is now powered by renewables.
It's not like Greenpeace were pretending when they recently praised Apple for their environmental record.
It's not like they are pretending to go over and above their minimum environmental obligations as a business.
It's not like Tim Cook was pretending when he got shirty recently with some right wing investors who criticised Cook and Apple for their environmental policies.
So what exactly is it that Apple are pretending to be concerned about?
Don't tell me. Apple are just plain wicked, so couldn't possibly actually give a crap about the environment. Is that it?
I am sure Apple is more concerned about the environment than it perhaps was under the control of Steve Jobs.
However I think the point is that Apple, and presumably loads of other businesses, have no qualms about using certain events or causes to basically just advertise their own brand.
It's hardly new. Many businesses will see the support of a charity as an alternative to an advertising campaign, but hoping for the same benefits.
Sure - it a company is able to put some spin on something, then the chances are they will.
I was just questioning the suggestion that they were only pretending to be concerned about the environment. I would have thought that when it comes to the environment Apple have arguably put their money where their mouth is more than most.
It's easy to assume Apple don't give a stuff given how bad they were. Does Apple really care now, or did it realise that other people cared and might have boycotted it?
That's obviously why Greenpeace and others produce lists to expose businesses and shame them into action. This is what has probably happened with Apple, given I think it was top of the tablet (and not in a good way) a few years ago.
Some other firms may not feel the need to make a big song and dance about things, as they were always mindful of the environmental impact of their businesses.
To be honest though, I don't regard any consumer electronics firm as being particularly interested in the environmental impact. In fact, the mobile phone market is perhaps the worst by encouraging people to upgrade and dump perfectly good equipment long before necessary.
People keep computers for many years, their TV for around 7 years, and home appliances until they fail.. but mobile phones? Some people are happy to change every six months.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, we'll look back and see just how wasteful it all was.. assuming we're not still doing the same thing.
If you look at the recent Apple record in product design it ain't very good.
Anyone recall them, with their highly OTT glued inaccessible products, leaving EPEAT and EPEAT coming back to renegotiate what 'green' means? (Obviously Greenback)
But what I was getting it is that they are even using green issues to get noticed by juries.
In a way this is just a continuation of that pre-emptive 'war on Android' marketing exercise pre-court cases.
It does look a bit contemptible to be sniping at your court competitor while supposedly selling 'green'.
It's not like they're pretending that so much of their business is now powered by renewables.
It's not like Greenpeace were pretending when they recently praised Apple for their environmental record.
It's not like they are pretending to go over and above their minimum environmental obligations as a business.
It's not like Tim Cook was pretending when he got shirty recently with some right wing investors who criticised Cook and Apple for their environmental policies.
So what exactly is it that Apple are pretending to be concerned about?
Don't tell me. Apple are just plain wicked, so couldn't possibly actually give a crap about the environment. Is that it?
I wonder how much real concern there is for these issues when they are raised simply for propaganda purposes. Strange they chose to use that certain terminology at this exact time is it not?
I suppose they could be worried that some company may use the tagline that no suicides are used in the manufacture of our phones
That they have invested literally billions in renewable energy, and done as much as they have making their products as recyclable as they have...
...just for the purposes of running an ad one day that has a dig at Samsung?
And the suicides thing? Seriously, still? It's like arguing that the NHS uses suicides to keep running, because some NHS employees once killed themselves. Never mind that they weren't even Apple employees. Never mind that the company also manufactured products for other companies. Never mind that the suicide rate was lower than the national average. Never mind that Apple probably did more than most to improve working conditions.
But hey - let's run with the headline Apple Use Suicides To Make The iPhone.
You don't happen to work for The Daily Mail do you?
Comments
I know you seem to have a very egocentric view of the world, but difficult as it might be to believe, not everyone would do the same as you.
However back in the real world where embracers of new technology actually live, it will become the standard and your whole nonsense as to why people don't use it is is just more (I have an iphone therefore don't need it) bull.
Funny how iphone users have been forced to become the ludites of the tech industry
I had a Nokia phone about ten years ago that would highlight phone numbers and auto-correct, Apple are taking the piss
Regular consumers not recording in 4K on their smartphones as of April 2014 does not make them a luddite.
You also seem to be assuming technology stands still. Even five years ago recording in HD would have posed the same problem, with the same trade offs as phones wouldn't have had anywhere near 64/128GB of storage.
I said iphone users not 4k users have becoe ludites, not sure if your ability to read and interpret is actually up to the required standard required here.
I am assume technology stands still, how does that make sense in any way
64/128gb for HD, there is soething wrong with you clearly.
The problem with your ludite view as deonstrated by this post is that when you have nothing else to say you simply invent answers to made up questions, most odd
Everything has to start somewhere though, and as I said, the next iPhone will be in use for at least two years by most customers (so that's three years from its release date, for those who will buy one shortly before the 6s comes out).
As such, Apple has to be thinking further ahead than its customers are. But history shows that Apple likes to wait (and keep customers waiting) on certain things, like 3G, a camera flash (even a decent camera in the first place) so perhaps it's not that surprising.
Samsung, Sony and others obviously think that adding 4K now is a good idea, which will help sell TVs because people now see the 4K logo on their phone and think 'Hang on, I can't fully enjoy the quality'. Likewise when they begin to see 4K offered on Netflix and want to enjoy films and TV series' at that quality.
I think UltraHD/4K will become something that is pushed heavily this Christmas (far more than it was last year) and we'll see cheaper 4K sets from the cheaper manufacturers. Then next year, 4K will probably be the norm on most TV sets of a certain size - or the year after next at worst. All the time the iPhone 6 will be in the hands of millions of users.
Thing is, the chipset will handle 4K with ease, so it's now a storage thing. And something Apple could fix by adding a card slot. As simple as that. Done.
But it makes too much money selling the higher memory capacity models, so will it favour that over convenience to its customers?
I think the biggest drivers of 4K will be Sky, Virgin and the BBC.
I'm not sure actually. Freeview is unlikely to offer 4K anytime soon (it still has hardly any HD channels) and Sky and Virgin will also need to sell new boxes to every customer, plus find the space to broadcast 4K channels.
Sure, it will happen one day, but I think this is when we'll see the likes of Netflix, Amazon Instant, and possibly Sky via broadband, offering 4K and having the ability to deliver much more than via fixed channels - and much quicker. And streaming video is very much becoming the norm for a new generation!
Indeed, even Apple and Google are perfectly positioned to deliver 4K content. Thus Apple has an incentive to offer 4K devices (iPhones, iPads and of course the computers and Apple TV).
I don't know what the minimum broadband speed would be for 4K, and that is obviously going to be a factor, but assuming you can stream a lower quality 4K feed at around 10Mbps (I'd imagine that's perfectly possible) then most people would be able to get it - even if they might have to upgrade their service. And slower speeds might still allow for 4K video with the usual pre-buffering.
I'd even expect my device to be capable of feeding my TV with 4K content. Thus, my Netflix app on the Z2 could drive my TV. It supports the new MHL standard to output 4K via the USB/HDMI cable after all.
Given I'm on Three with unlimited data, I could - in theory - watch 4K content using mobile data right now - and that's months before Apple has even launched its new iPhone.
I don't expect sky, virgin etc to have much input into 4k for a while yet, except in very selective ways. They don't braodcast in 1080 yet, braodcasting space being the real problem with higher resolutions.
The major way to watch 4k initially will be through steaming, Netflix etc (15mb recomended miniumum speed according to them) So it is perfect steaming direct to your 4k TV or watching on the next generation of mobile screens.
Again something Apple have largely dropped the ball on again so far, as they will be unable to stream to Tv's direct and at all without a new Apple TV (if it supports 4k in future generations).
If they DO add Ultra HD support then it will make it even more crazy not to have 4K support on the iPhone for recording 4K content of your own. The next iPhone won't be until late 2015, so it has to do it this year in my opinion.
By year end, when Qualcomm will have its Snapdragon 805 SoC in many devices (Note 4, Xperia Z3 etc) and next year when we will have Snapdragon 810 (64 bit) - as well as whatever the others do, Apple will be way behind if it has to go for most of 2015 with a device that isn't capable.
So it has a dilemma here. Add some form of memory expansion, or just sell 4K as this amazing thing but only really of use if you pay £100-200 more for a 64 or 128GB model?
If anyone can get away with it, Apple can, but I suspect that people are far more critical now. People don't just accept what the likes of Tim Cook says as gospel, as they would have done with Steve Jobs. If Jobs said something, it had to be right. If you thought different, you were wrong.
Now people can look at Apple and think it has made yet another mistake, and over time more and more people will look elsewhere.
I've got an Apple TV, but the support for it has been terrible - and none more so than in the UK. It has become so outdated and antiquated that it now sits in a drawer, and even when I've asked friends and family if they'd want it so it wasn't just sitting idle, I've had polite refusal because unless you're a big iTunes user, or use Netflix, there's pretty much sod all else you can do with it. I'd have hoped and expected to get support for most, if not all, of the streaming services out there by now. If Apple was serious about TV it would have pushed for this.
There are very few 4k streamers available right now as 4k is very much in it's infancy and they would need to have the HEVC codec in order to fully support 4k streaming (going by Netflix 4k support for TV's so streamers should be no different)
Roku, Apple, Amazon, Western Digital are all in the same boat i.e no 4k support whatsoever so I would not say Apple have dropped the ball as it's not really commercially viable to produce a 4k streaming box currently.
Mind you, this is probably now something for an all new topic as this is now way off the original thread discussion!!
Definitely agree on that one.
True some early 4k TVs are unable too as well
I was referring to the ability to stream direct from a phone,
In the same emails it seems he expressed the need for ios to catch up with android worried they were falling behind - citing "notifications, tethering, speech…" as areas for improvement. Apple is in danger of hanging on to old paradigm too long with Google and Microsoft further along on the technology
Seems Apple realised early that they were way behind Android
He also notes the need to make Apple ecosystem even more sticky, hmmmm
:rolleyes:
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/oh-apple-did-you-have-to/
Apple have become like the Dad dancing at a wedding, still under the impression they're hip
It's not like they're pretending that so much of their business is now powered by renewables.
It's not like Greenpeace were pretending when they recently praised Apple for their environmental record.
It's not like they are pretending to go over and above their minimum environmental obligations as a business.
It's not like Tim Cook was pretending when he got shirty recently with some right wing investors who criticised Cook and Apple for their environmental policies.
So what exactly is it that Apple are pretending to be concerned about?
Don't tell me. Apple are just plain wicked, so couldn't possibly actually give a crap about the environment. Is that it?
However I think the point is that Apple, and presumably loads of other businesses, have no qualms about using certain events or causes to basically just advertise their own brand.
It's hardly new. Many businesses will see the support of a charity as an alternative to an advertising campaign, but hoping for the same benefits.
I was just questioning the suggestion that they were only pretending to be concerned about the environment. I would have thought that when it comes to the environment Apple have arguably put their money where their mouth is more than most.
That's obviously why Greenpeace and others produce lists to expose businesses and shame them into action. This is what has probably happened with Apple, given I think it was top of the tablet (and not in a good way) a few years ago.
Some other firms may not feel the need to make a big song and dance about things, as they were always mindful of the environmental impact of their businesses.
To be honest though, I don't regard any consumer electronics firm as being particularly interested in the environmental impact. In fact, the mobile phone market is perhaps the worst by encouraging people to upgrade and dump perfectly good equipment long before necessary.
People keep computers for many years, their TV for around 7 years, and home appliances until they fail.. but mobile phones? Some people are happy to change every six months.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, we'll look back and see just how wasteful it all was.. assuming we're not still doing the same thing.
Anyone recall them, with their highly OTT glued inaccessible products, leaving EPEAT and EPEAT coming back to renegotiate what 'green' means? (Obviously Greenback)
But what I was getting it is that they are even using green issues to get noticed by juries.
In a way this is just a continuation of that pre-emptive 'war on Android' marketing exercise pre-court cases.
It does look a bit contemptible to be sniping at your court competitor while supposedly selling 'green'.
I wonder how much real concern there is for these issues when they are raised simply for propaganda purposes. Strange they chose to use that certain terminology at this exact time is it not?
I suppose they could be worried that some company may use the tagline that no suicides are used in the manufacture of our phones
That they have invested literally billions in renewable energy, and done as much as they have making their products as recyclable as they have...
...just for the purposes of running an ad one day that has a dig at Samsung?
And the suicides thing? Seriously, still? It's like arguing that the NHS uses suicides to keep running, because some NHS employees once killed themselves. Never mind that they weren't even Apple employees. Never mind that the company also manufactured products for other companies. Never mind that the suicide rate was lower than the national average. Never mind that Apple probably did more than most to improve working conditions.
But hey - let's run with the headline Apple Use Suicides To Make The iPhone.
You don't happen to work for The Daily Mail do you?