To put it another way, people who have 4k TVs today - the luxury market - may be put off of the new Apple TV because of its lack of support for their higher-end devices. I'm not sure that's a desirable effect.
Apple's brand image is "luxury"
Ultimately, it'd presumably add cost for a feature useful to few people. Connectivity for 4k also remains a mess; there's HDMI 1.4 (24hz at 4k, so not good enough; the interface presumably runs at 60fps like all other Apple interfaces), and HDMI 2.0, which does support 60hz at 4k, but which is somewhat rare, and has its own problems: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world...
I expect in a couple of years when 4k TVs are more common, content exists for them in significant amounts, and the connector standard (possibly HDMI 2.0a?) is sorted out, they'll support it.
That puts 4K squarely in the "middle class" market, if you ask me, and if Apple TV doesn't support it, that means they aren't even targeting middle class. They are basically targeting poor people with an expensive luxury item that can run apps (half of which, like Netflix and Hulu, already run on most users' smart TVs). Their marketing strategy is borderline nonsensical.
Of course, some rich people are racing-car enthusiasts, or audiophiles, or whatever else—and it seems to be more common in the high-end, simply because more of the rich can afford to actually get these things when they want them. But that doesn't mean that the desire is a rich-people thing, or that making something super-duper-high-numbered will make it sell more to the rich.
(Of course, if you give the thing a super-duper-high-numbered price tag, you might inspire some rich people to get it as a Veblen good, which can often look like a desire for the bleeding-edge. You'll frequently find things purchased in this way being underutilized—4K "Veblen TVs" purchased in order to watch 480p Seinfeld re-runs and so on.)
You can buy a 50 inch 4K TV nowadays for under $1,000. 4K is going to explode in the next year or two, and if the new Apple TV doesn't support it, I won't be buying it. Period.
They are going to miss the boat if 4k explodes this black friday.
At which time they will no doubt support it. Right now it'd be an extra expense of use to very few users, and they'd have to deal with the connectivity problem.
Is that brief standing-too-close moment worth the massive increase in bandwidth required?
The only reason you can't tell the difference is because you are probably watching 1080p content that is being upscaled.
Watch TRUE 4K content on a 65+ inch television, and it's like looking through window. It's amazing.
4K TV's aren't going to "explode", they are going to continue to be a slow trickle.
http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/articles/15-years-after-launc...
Similar as pushing 2k/4k screens to mobile phones - marketing and sales.
>60" TVs are a thing, but they're a serious niche, especially outside the U.S., where homes tend to be smaller. Apple would simply be adding cost to work for the tiny amount of the market who both want a really huge TV, and happen to have gotten a 4k one, and they'd probably have to release a hardware revision or so anyway in a year or so she the connectivity issues around 4k resolve themselves.
I mean, aren't they are supposed to be releasing cutting edge technology here? Why are they releasing a set top Apple TV that can't even display the content that the new iPhone and iPad can CREATE and edit?
I want to be able to record 4K videos on my iPhone, then turn around and play them on my 4K TV, without having to leave the Apple ecosystem.
It is a huge, glaring flaw in their ecosystem if I can't do that.
I'm not saying this a valid excuse for omitting 4K support. However, for the most part I don't think the infrastructure is really there for the wider population. I live out in the sticks and barely get 3Mbps.
Perhaps we might see 4K come to the Apple TV next year either as a software upgrade on current hardware or with better GPU/CPU to support it.
Probably a chicken and egg problem, why upgrade to fibre many people will think when you have no need for it apart from slightly faster large file downloads
That said, 25Mb/s is at the lower end of the FTTC service. I can imagine a lot of households will max out at around 40Mbps due to distance from the cabinet and cross-talk on busy lines (though vectoring should help somewhat). I would like to see what G.FAST can deliver but unshielded copper phone lines can only take you so far.