Is Apple TV waiting on H.265 HEVC ratification?
Summary: At CES, the pundits worried over the super-high cost of super-high resolution televisions. And then there was the lack of Ultra HD content. But a forthcoming compression standard appears to be the fix, and Apple is already in the thick of it.
Much talk at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, earlier this month — both yea and nay — was over the content delivery problems with Ultra HD, aka Ultra High-Definition video. It's the chicken and egg conundrum. You can buy a beautiful set costing about the price of a car (not an economy model), but there's little content. One of the issues is the industry-wide adoption of a newer and better codec to get all that Ultra HD video around the Internets without clogging the drains. Enter H.265, High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC).
The standard is a real ISO/IEC MPEG standard, and is due for ratification shortly, even in the first quarter of 2013. Codec software for testing has been announced. The standard will support a resolution of 8,192x4,320 pixels and can deliver double the data compression ratio of the current H.264. And unlike H.264, HEVC is also optimized for parallel processing, meaning different parts of the video image can be decoded simultaneously, bringing up the most important parts first, just like your browser.
At the Dreamtek blog, run by a team of UK video production consultants, a recent post on HEVC talks about the technology and its benefits for mobile video. And then there is the leading support from Apple.
Apple has already moved to support HEVC on its iPads — those sold in 2012 are HEVC compliant. As the below image (borrowed from RealNetworks) shows, HEVC is capable of significantly higher definition.
That's particularly interesting in light of Apple's constant quest to deliver high-resolution displays across all its devices, especially in light of the constant claims the company is plotting its way to introduce a dedicated Apple television set.
Will this be among the first available and affordable consumer televisions to be equipped with both Internet access and support for the coming standard? If so, it hints at future plans to offer up content using the standard via the iTunes Store.
Yet video market analysts say hold your horses. Dan Rayburn, principal analyst at Frost and Sullivan wrote on StreamingMedia.com that there are many problems with quick adoption by the conservative and cost-conscious video industry. In a detailed analysis, Rayburn said that 2016 was a more likely target date for widespread adoption.
One can draw a parallel between the adoption curve of MPEG-4 as it gradually encroached into the supremacy of MPEG-2. We believe that while token adoptions--such as incorporation into DVB standards for terrestrial broadcasting--will occur in the short-term, and a few channels may also be launched by 2015, a critical mass of adoption will not begin to occur until at least 2016. History indicates this--even a decade after the launch of AVC, MPEG-2 remains a formidable force in Pay TV (particularly cable), owing to the massive footprint of legacy equipment such as set top boxes and transmission infrastructure that is all designed to work with MPEG-2 video.
Cost also remains an issue--many Pay TV operators in regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America are choosing MPEG-2 rather than AVC because of the significantly lower cost of consumer premise equipment (CPE) and video encoders. Considering the massive wave of investment in AVC equipment that we have seen in the last two years, we expect at least 5 more years of equipment life before economically stressed broadcasters and service providers will consider systemic upgrades. Any video technology touches many components as it travels from glass to glass, such as cameras, NLE systems, video indexing systems, statistical multiplexers, satellite transponders, head-ends, and (perhaps most importantly) CPEs.
Similarly on the OTT side, transcoders, file formats, streaming protocols, streaming servers, content protection systems, network optimization platforms, and end devices all need to support HEVC before an end to end solution becomes broadly viable. In their continual endeavor to fight commoditization and drive demand through continued technological disruption, vendors of video technology and consumer electronics devices alike are engaged in fast and furious product development around HEVC, with many announcements made already and several more significant milestones expected throughout 2013.
This all sounds like the perfect fit for an Apple ecosystem. Apple wouldn't necessarily be balked by widespread adoption. The company owns the hardware side of equation in parts of its platforms, or could with the oft-rumored, next-gen Apple TV. Its mobile platforms are already compatible.
Apple also has the service side infrastructure: The iTunes Store, which now offers content 119 countries. Apple said that its iTunes business generated revenue of $2.1 billion in its first fiscal quarter. Why not be the first to offer the best video on the best hardware with the best content service?
Apple could also offer the best HD editing workstation--a refreshed Mac Pro. And the editing software for it.
Here's what Tim Cook, Apple CEO had to say on the current Apple TV business during this week's conference call with financial analysts:
Gene, you're asking me all questions I don't want to answer, but let me see if I can find some comments to make that productive. In terms of the product that we sell today, the Apple TV, we sold more last quarter than we've ever sold before, eclipsing 2 million during the quarter. It was up almost 60 percent year-on-year, and so there is actually very, very good growth in that product.
What was the small niche at one time the people loved, it is a much larger number...I have said in the past, this is an area of intense interest for us and it remains that. I tend to believe that there is a lot we can contribute in this space, and so we continue to pull the string and see where it leads us, but I don't want to be more specific.
We're waiting on the "intense interest." Perhaps another way of saying a super codec for super HD content.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Is Apple TV waiting on H.265 HEVC ratification?
Nice spin dude - wasted though
Sony is making 4K TV sets - this is about the abbility to deliver content to TVs including Sony sets.
'Designer'? not the point at all.
We need a standard for compression for 4K content. H.265 apparently is a contender.
Apple is part of the push for standards - so you stupidly deflect this to be about Sony?
I don't know about you but I am already producing 4K video content. To me the choice of codec is important.
The best platform to produce 4K content on is OS X - in fact it works really well for this.
& before you suggest otherwise - Asus used the array cam effect in a live kiosk to show how great their PCs were.
To rapidly make videos of people jumping in a camera array - they chose to use Mac laptops with the logos covered - instead of their own PCs - why? Cause it worked and worked well and fast.
I also use Macs to edit video for the same reasons.
Now go and buy a Sony 4K TV - I would if I could.
Right now I use a Samsung TV, a Sony Blu-ray player and to get better content and a more manageable interface I have an Apple TV connected to the Samsung, and often play from my iPhone 5 or my iPad.
The world is not about what you think it is.
Bag of hurt?
I agree for the most part.
What'll happen if Apple does produce a physical TV
People are laughing at your stupidity...
Why pay $3000 or $4000 or more for a TV that one can get from some other manufacturer of perhaps 1/3 the price? Besides, most people already have high-def TVs in their homes, and those that don't, will not be paying more for a TV than what other people paid in the past. When TVs are now between $300 and $1000 for sizes between 32 inches to 65 inches, then, why go back to the exorbitant prices that Apple will charge for even the smaller screen TVs?
Apple fanboism seems to take away the capacity to think, and you demonstrate that better than anyone.
BTW, MS is not in the TV business, nor have they ever mentioned going that way, while Apple is not a hardware maker, sort of like Samsung, and thus, Apple should go and create their own TV sets. Microsoft is about computers and software and enterprise support and OSes and internet and much, much more, but, they've never pretended to be a technology manufacturer beyond computers and all that's related to computers.
Dude it takes one to know one.
Btw it takes a bigger one to know one.
You are commenting stupidly too, since you don't know the posting history
He is referring to the comments which Ballmer is accused of making when the iPad first came out, and now, he's trying to, ahead of any real product, attribute the same kind of remarks to Ballmer. And that's for a product which doesn't even exist or may never exist. And Ballmer hasn't even commented on any possible future release of any Apple products.
Anticipating what somebody will say, is pretty stupid, and toddbottom7 has already proved his stupidity a few thousand times in this forum.
Once somebody has been proven to be stupid and a liar so many times, it's pretty easy to call him what he is.
And, your defense of him, just makes you pretty stupid too.
I am laughing at your density
Apple is not just making an HDTV, it will be way more than that, you should try reading the article, you obviously haven't.
I was going to refute the rest of your stupidity, but its not worth my time. Have fun using Microsoft Window.
I'm laughing at your idiocy, since, the article did not mention any real
Defending something which doesn't exist, is pure idiocy.
Besides, whatever technology was mentioned in the article, is also available to all the other tech companies out there, and to all of the TV manufacturers. Why would they, the ones who are already involved in making TV sets, allow Apple to overtake them when it comes to any future features for TV tech? In fact, some of them are very much involved in developing the next wave of tech for TVs, with the super-high definition TVs, and compression technology.
It is apparently you who failed to understand what was written in the article, and it is you who has failed to notice what the rest of technology companies are up to. But, to you, just because the article was written with Apple in mind, anybody that refutes the contents of the article, has to be wrong or uninformed. But, without question, it's you that is commenting without first thinking, and the only comments you made were in defense of Apple, with no real understanding of what's really happening. Once Apple makes it known that they are working on the "next TV set", and starts demoing it, and even mentioning possible pricing, then, and only then, should anybody go beyond speculation. Right now, it's just speculation and guesswork on the part of somebody who wishes for Apple to come out with the "next big thing". Get it???
Now, go back to playing with your WII.
Fanboi...
OK, Apple computers tend to be 3x as much as a PC on the same end of performance (i.e. a low end Mac vs a low end PC). Often times, we do however see that a low end Mac tends to be more comparable with a middle class PC as far as performance goes. But let us see a bigger picture of about 10 years. Over a period of 10 years, buying Apple is almost always cheaper than buying PC, assuming you are a power user, keep your OS current, and expect a relatively speedy performance. In short, we're talking about buying 2 Apple computers vs buying about 5 PC's over the same 10 years. We're also talking about Mac OS X on an Apple vs Windows on a PC.
Now, on to the TV side of things.
A 27" Apple LCD runs about $1000. New, my 28" HannsG was about $350.
The Apple LCD has a resolution of 2560 x 1440 = 3686400
The HannsG LCD has a resolution of 1920 x 1200 = 2304000
By resolution, the Apple is 1.6 times the resolution.
HannsG ($350) x 1.6 = $560 pixel cost.
On the surface, is Apple more expensive? Yes. Is Apple over priced? Depends on your need and expectation of your LCD. Within warranty periods, HannsG is useless. (The units I got had bad capacitors from the factory and horizontal color smears.)
The HannsG gives me VGA input and HDMI input.
The Apple gives me Thunderbolt input, which passes video, internal USB, firewire, etc. over a single cable, offers an Apple laptop (Mag connector) power source to the laptops, has a USB and firewire hub right on the LCD, and a built in iSight camera.
Either monitor can be converted to work on Mac or PC.
The Apple TV (the media box, not the full television) is only $99 new. Compared to Boxee, Roku, etc., this is almost down to the penny the same price, and in some cases, cheaper than the non-Apple option.
Apple makes their money on AV content, not the Apple TV.
If they chase the full television, will they follow the LCD and price it high or follow the Apple TV and out do the competition? Personally, I think they'll be the cost of a non Apple television + the cost of an Apple TV media box + about 17% higher.
Breaking the strangle hold of the cable companies?
Not The Real Issue
but - it would make a real difference for 3D HD viewing now, because 3D cuts actual resolution in half for its duplicate frames, and Ultra HD would boost it back up to HD levels. IF, that is, there was any 3D content to watch. but the mediacos are intentionally withholding the popular 3D movies from the TV rental/on demand market so you have to buy $15 IMAX movie tickets or $40 BD movies instead. and the networks they own refuse to invest in 3D equipment to broadcast live sports, its other big potential. in other words, the mediacos are doing their best to sabotage 3D TV, which also makes Ultra HD useless.
so the immediate advantage of H265 will just be it's big chop in bandwidth demands for today's streaming video. that's a really good thing, but not a revolution. sure, Apple will deploy it quickly.