First Apple TV prototypes "in the works" as Apple reportedly shopping part suppliers

245

Comments

  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    I agree. It'd be 1080p- no more (what would a 4k tv cost.... Seriously.



    What about downloading 4K content, haha.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doctorwho View Post


    So smartphones, maybe.



    Personal computers in the 70's?

    MP3 Players in 2001?

    Tablets in 2011?



    Hardly "mature markets".



    Agreed, he's extrapolating smartphones for his whole argument.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Considering the AppleTV sold something like 2.8 million last year, 1.4 million units for something that will cost a lot more than $99 seems rather unlikely.



    Well they'll sell 0 if it doesn't come out this year, which it mat not as the content deals are what are really holding it up. But 1.4M TV's for Apple in one year? Clearly achievable.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    Did apple enter those markets or create them?



    What I think Munster was trying to say is "When apple enters mature markets, their goal is to reinvent them."



    Excellent point. I would submit that Apple's main goal is not to reinvent anything, but to provide a great product in markets where there isn't one. I see Apple being inspired by frustration with using other products more than anything else, because there sure is a lot of crap out there.
  • mknoppmknopp Posts: 257member
    Okay, perhaps it is time for Apple to put some of that $100 billion to work.



    CBS/Viacom:

    Controlled by National Amusements, which interestingly has been in some financial trouble the last few years. I am thinking a few billion should easily buy what they want if they simply go above the CBS suit's heads and deal directly with Michael Redstone.



    ABC:

    Owned by Disney, which shouldn't be a problem for Apple given their history.



    Fox:

    This one could be a problem since Murdock doesn't seem to understand anything about modern technology. (Reference recent tirade on Twitter.) And Fox has shown an incredible reluctance to give their customers what they really want. In this case, I am thinking a cool $25 billion expenditure would be in order to buy up a supervoting block of News Corp stock. This would have the added benefit of giving Apple an inroad to Hulu, as Fox owns part of Hulu.



    NBC:

    This one isn't really an issue, since when Comcast bought NBCUniversal they had to agree to basically agree to any licensing deal that the other networks agree to. So, get the others aboard and NBC pretty much has to agree or have the government startup nasty inquiries.



    So, I am thinking that for about $30 billion (or twice what they made last quarter) they should be able to secure licensing deals with all four major networks.



    Of course, the real question is whether this is a good expenditure or not. That is a lot of money, after all.
  • sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member
    Hope its not a rectangle, thin, with an uncluttered front, and comes packaged in a rectangular box. Cause then i won't be able to tell the difference between it and a samsung TV from 20 feet and they could get sued and have their products banned.....in germany
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KDMeister View Post


    This is where that 97 billion dollars pile of cash will come in handy. All Apple needs to do is wave a couple billions in front of those TV executives and they'll be able to bring a la carte programming to the masses. Done deal.



    Steve Jobs mentioned the problem with the TV market is having a "Go to market" strategy. No matter how fancy your hardware is, it will not suceed without allowing users to pay only for channels they will watch. This is like the iPod and the 99 cents song all over again. Without being able to buy individual songs instead of the whole album, how well would the iPod have done?



    People want to watch what they want to watch. It's Apple's job to give it to them. Now how they give it to them is clearly important and is in essence Apple's magic. But getting them that show they watch is clearly the most important factor here.



    Apple should ABSOLUTELY bid on getting the Sky Sports contract in the UK. It's quite possibly the most important LIVE TV contract in the world, and I sure don't want to see Rupert Murdock getting it again. I can promise you in this part of the world this would sell Apple Televisions.
  • argonautargonaut Posts: 110member
    Not really regarding an 'Apple TV' per se, but with ANY streaming solution the problem as always is the content.



    I tried out Netflix when it launched in the UK last month - it is an amazing service that works brilliantly across your devices and I loved the idea of a fixed monthly fee where I could watch anything I want , TV show or movie, whenever.



    The problem with Netflix is the complete lack of content! My first 4 searches of movies I wanted to watch were not available for streaming.



    I cancelled. Brilliant idea - not anywhere near enough content.



    If Apple can find a way to get all the major studios/networks to agree and allow ALL their TV/Movies content to be streamed in HD, then I will sign up.. it is the way forward and the future.
  • ssls6ssls6 Posts: 49member
    What could you possible do with an apple TV



    1) gaming and apps for the living room

    2) record live TV to any of your macs or NAS equiped airports

    3) a menu system that could be controlled via an apple remote, iphone, ipad, mac

    4) Siri for people who want to talk to their tv

    5) playback to your macs, iphones, ipads

    6) bluetooth speaker support

    7) video decode for any formats to support your cameras, downloads, ...

    8) simple interface for blue-ray/dvds



    the challenge



    How do you get access to the streams from direct TV, comcast, dish, etc....To be ultimately cool, you need to get those boxes out of the loop. Most of these boxes can be controlled via wifi now, there are apps to control them. So it should be possible.
  • sevenfeetsevenfeet Posts: 327member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by argonaut View Post


    Not really regarding an 'Apple TV' per se, but with ANY streaming solution the problem as always is the content.



    I tried out Netflix when it launched in the UK last month - it is an amazing service that works brilliantly across your devices and I loved the idea of a fixed monthly fee where I could watch anything I want , TV show or movie, whenever.



    The problem with Netflix is the complete lack of content! My first 4 searches of movies I wanted to watch were not available for streaming.



    I cancelled. Brilliant idea - not anywhere near enough content.



    If Apple can find a way to get all the major studios/networks to agree and allow ALL their TV/Movies content to be streamed in HD, then I will sign up.. it is the way forward and the future.



    And that's the rub, Content owners are generally petrified of Apple. And what's even scarier for them is that this isn't the same Apple that came at the the music studios in 2002 wanting to do a music store. 2012 Apple is a worldwide goliath that's bigger than any of them. And then there's Netflix. Netflix showed that the streaming model works. The problem is that studios think they can get more money than what Netflix is willing to charge. They think their content is worth more than it probably is. So now while they are trying to kill Netflix without raising the ire of the Justice Department, here comes Apple wanting to do their own content box. Studios see Apple $100b war chest and lick their chops at getting some of it, but Tim Cook is no fool and will not do a deal that doesn't make Apple a pile of money somewhere.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by argonaut View Post


    Not really regarding an 'Apple TV' per se, but with ANY streaming solution the problem as always is the content.



    I tried out Netflix when it launched in the UK last month - it is an amazing service that works brilliantly across your devices and I loved the idea of a fixed monthly fee where I could watch anything I want , TV show or movie, whenever.



    The problem with Netflix is the complete lack of content! My first 4 searches of movies I wanted to watch were not available for streaming.



    I cancelled. Brilliant idea - not anywhere near enough content.



    My plan for Netflix is to watch what I want to watch and then cancel. I'm still in my free month.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,021member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    What could you possible do with an apple TV



    1) gaming and apps for the living room



    In my opinion gaming for the living room on the TV needs a dedicated hardware controller (with physical buttons). If Apple does allow gaming apps I sure hope they come out with a PS3-inspired hardware controller.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    2) record live TV to any of your macs or NAS equiped airports



    That it won't have.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    3) a menu system that could be controlled via an apple remote, iphone, ipad, mac



    A gimmick but it may have this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    4) Siri for people who want to talk to their tv



    I don't see Siri getting added to their TV.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    5) playback to your macs, iphones, ipads



    I see playback happening the other way around via apps like Air Video and AirPlay.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    What could you possible do with an apple TV6) bluetooth speaker support



    Bluetooth TV speaker? meh...





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    7) video decode for any formats to support your cameras, downloads, ...



    Keep dreaming. Though a third party Air Video iTV app would do this if it wasn't rejected.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    8) simple interface for blue-ray/dvds



    There won't be a DVD slot or an HDMI port. There will be audio ports, that's all, but I expect the built-in speakers to be decent.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6


    the challenge



    How do you get access to the streams from direct TV, comcast, dish, etc....To be ultimately cool, you need to get those boxes out of the loop. Most of these boxes can be controlled via wifi now, there are apps to control them. So it should be possible.



    It won't talk to these boxes, once again you think America is the world. It will circumvent these boxes completely by Apple doing content deals - this is the actual challenge.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    And I don't want an a6 ATV box. I want the tv- because I want all my other components (cable, Blu ray, DVR, and interface) built into it.



    They wouldn't be, so?



    Quote:

    If they revolutionize programming, the box would be one because the UI would be through that.



    And why should I have to buy an entirely new TV to replace my (potentially 1, 2, 3, etc.) perfectly good televisions just to have that?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tipoo View Post


    Doesn't the Apple TV use the A4 right now? The next one would probably use the A5 as its been behind the iPad and iPhone SoC by one generation before.



    When? When the current one came out, the iPhone 4 was the modern iPhone, and it has an A4 chip. The iPad and iPod touch with A4 were also out then. New models of any of them wouldn't show up until March the following year.



    Quote:

    And honestly, why would a simple media playback device need a quad core Cortex A9, the A5 can already decode 1080p.



    Because Apple has given infinity illegitimate excuses for not doing 1080p with the CURRENT box when it's capable. It would be easier for them to have all four products shipping with A6 chips and easier for us to not accept stuff being cut out.



    No, I don't think it's for apps. There's no real point to apps on a TV setting. I just want the power for on-the-fly decodes/encodes/recodes and whatever else is needed.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    There are enough rumors that make me think this is happening but I still heard a single reasonable reason why this is better for Apple an consumers over a standalone box that allows you to connect any dummy TV or Apple licensing with TV vendors to allow the many different sizes and types to appeal to a vast range of consumers.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Agreed, he's extrapolating smartphones for his whole argument.



    And you could argue that the smartphone market wasn't mature in retrospect when you look at how easily Apple not only changed the way we look at smartphones, but also made them popular and took the lion's share of the profits a year after entry.
  • flaneurflaneur Posts: 3,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I won't be 3D, and thank God for that. 3D is a gimmick that should be kept to once-a-year theater events.



    Binocular vision is a gimmick.



    Wear a patch over one eye. You'll be happier seeing the world flat, and maybe get more attention besides.
  • andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    TS- I, too, think the most likely predecessor to the apple tv 2 will be an a5 or a6 apple tv 3 that allows for 1080p streaming, and not much else different than what we have now.



    But having an ATV box with a great interface and way to access content much easier could only be successful if you had a content deal worked out. If there is no content deal, outside of 1080p, it offers nothing else.



    Having an integrated tv (cable card or Internet tv partners like Uverse, Blu ray player, apple tv box built in, DVR built in) would allow for all that content to be accessed via the new well designed and great user interface. I've thought dozens of times how awesome it would be to hold a button on a remote and say "record the mavericks basketball game tonight". Or "play Coldplay rush of blood to the head". Or "play wall-e". That could only be done with a content deal on the box, but could be done tomorrow on an integrated tv with a content partner. That option is more than fine with me. You could still get a streaming ATV box for your other TVs, but for ones you wanted built-in simplicity, you could get the apple television.



    Heck- the stand alone box could give access to record to your full television, access recorded information, or maybe even have its own content access via Uverse as well (just no Blu ray or DVR- itd still be a streaming only device). But the boxes only work different than they do now (standalone) if you have a full television or something. Typical apple- buy this product with this product and you get this much more functionality.
  • andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    There are enough rumors that make me think this is happening but I still heard a single reasonable reason why this is better for Apple an consumers over a standalone box that allows you to connect any dummy TV or Apple licensing with TV vendors to allow the many different sizes and types to appeal to a vast range of



    I just gave ya one.



    If a content deal is not worked out (very very very possible- because of local sports alone).



    No content deal = an apple tv box can't have a beautiful interface for all content. You'd have to still use a cable box.

    No content deal = a full fledged television with Blu ray, DVR, ATV, and a content partner like Uverse would allow for a great user interface.



    If a content deal is worked out, I agree, no need. But if it isn't- which I think it won't be (impossible for nfl, local MLB, local nba, local NHL), then we could have that amazing interface tomorrow.



    I'm all about easier way to access- not a revolution. That way the apple haters can say I'm an idiot for spending $500 more to get a Blu ray player built in and a cable box/DVR I already have. They won't understand the ease of access, they'll only understand they get the same thing I do (with a much harder way and less enjoyable way to get it). Perfect scenario even for the haters!
  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... Since we know Apple is exploring television hardware, we are therefore led to conclude that the company is exploring a solution for live TV ....



    This part here is completely unsupported and is basically just an assumption Munster is making.



    I'm not saying they definitely *aren't* exploring integrating "live TV" (although I can't see why they would), but there is no logic to his statement about it. Apple could easily be making a TV that doesn't use "live TV" at all. The fact that they are making a TV doesn't therefore mean they will be looking at "live TV" solutions.



    Huge numbers of people don't give a hoot about "live TV" at all and most of them are the forward/alternative thinking types that would buy an Apple branded TV set.
  • dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doctorwho View Post


    So smartphones, maybe.



    Personal computers in the 70's?

    MP3 Players in 2001?

    Tablets in 2011?



    Hardly "mature markets".



    Personal computers wasn't much of a market until the early 90's

    Now MP3 players is a lil tricky, they were available but still fairly new but they were a technological progression from Walkmans, cassette/CD, which in 2001 was a very mature market.

    Tablets have been around for quite some time but nothing like the iPad.



    In some cases they grew a weak market with a great product, in another they shook up the status quo.

    Both very effective and profitable.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    I just gave ya one.



    If a content deal is not worked out (very very very possible- because of local sports alone).



    No content deal = an apple tv box can't have a beautiful interface for all content. You'd have to still use a cable box.

    No content deal = a full fledged television with Blu ray, DVR, ATV, and a content partner like Uverse would allow for a great user interface.



    If a content deal is worked out, I agree, no need. But if it isn't- which I think it won't be (impossible for nfl, local MLB, local nba, local NHL), then we could have that amazing interface tomorrow.



    I'm all about easier way to access- not a revolution. That way the apple haters can say I'm an idiot for spending $500 more to get a Blu ray player built in and a cable box/DVR I already have. They won't understand the ease of access, they'll only understand they get the same thing I do (with a much harder way and less enjoyable way to get it). Perfect scenario even for the haters!



    Content is a separate issue altogether and isnt affected by the AppleTV being interior or exterior to the TV or whether it's licensed by vendors. The same situation still happens where it's less desirable to only have 3 panel sizes with no other TV options for the many places owners want to place them, and you still have the issue with content. I'm not going to give up cable TV simply because Apple put the AppleTV in a TV so my question still stands.
Sign In or Register to comment.