Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.
I know Steve hated them, but if the TV doesn't include an integrated CableCard, then people would still need an external box. And I thought the whole point of AppleTV was simplicity. So hopefully everything is included so all my TV watching options are covered.
If they really wanted to be forward thinking, they'd include an integrated Tru2Way card so things like VoD would work.
What if it's like some of the TV apps out there? The Time Warner, HBO, TNT, Cinemax apps all just have you authenticate your cable subscription to access them. They could use something similar for a television without a cable card or set top box.
I'm believing (hoping) they will keep the external appliance and have it be as functional as the integrated. I can't imagine Apple creating a display that suits what I've come to expect from my visual home entertainment experience in two of my viewing rooms.
It will look a bit out of place for someone to back their pickup truck to an Apple store to load their 50" Apple TV.
What seems as an obvious evolution to create such a product, just feels so disconnected to me.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Or see it when I believe it.
When you think of the form factor involved, it doesn't seem feasible for such sets to be sold directly out of the typical Apple Store.
It'll be hard enough to display them in-store, but impossible to store them on-site. They'd have to just ship them after you order in the store or on-line.
The only "first in a line" device that I've ever seen refer to itself as such is the EV-1.
I'm confused why people think that my point doesn't stand, though. Any product that is the first product in a line of numbered products is the first product by number.
Sure, but there's a big difference between a name and a convenient means of reference. My brother is my first brother, but "first brother" is not his name any more than my second brother's name is "brother 2." For the first little bit my brother was, "my new brother." It's just a reference. What's confusing about that?
I'm going to place myself directly in the crosshairs here...
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
To what end. What would make a higher CPU needed in the phone. The highest load is graphics and the A5x has offloaded that to the better gpu. Frankly I think Apple is looking at the iPad as the computer killer, not the iPhone. So the iPad will likely led, not follow, on processor/SoC upgrades
I agree, what would the iPhone gain with more speed? What Apple could do is include the advanced battery design that they created for the new iPad. That would allow Apple to upgrade the iPhone with newer Qualicom chips for faster data delivery without a talk-time hit.
Perhaps, if the timing is right, Apple could change out the CPU/GPU chip for one with a smaller die size. I have no idea what the time-line may be on that possibility.
I'm going to place myself directly in the crosshairs here...
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Fire away.
The available programming is BORING. You have to spend too much to get the channels you want. Furthermore, I want the ability to make a little Steve Jobs avatar that could run out onto the field during a national championship game and steal the ball and run with it. I want the ability to interrupt poorly produced commercials and interject my own commentary.
Furthermore, I want the ability to make a little Steve Jobs avatar that could run out onto the field during a national championship game and steal the ball and run with it.
Sony has patents for that.
Quote:
I want the ability to interrupt poorly produced commercials and interject my own commentary.
I'm going to place myself directly in the crosshairs here...
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Fire away.
Well... it can be done better. At least Jonathan Ive thinks so.
The remote - how many buttons do you ever use. Remotes are big, ugly, and unwieldy.
Programe selection - I don't want to buy my programs, I think that concept suck big time, but I want to be able to decide which channels, or even which shows I watch, when I want to watch them.
I want a broader selection of shows without having to buy the MEGA package.
I want to be able to watch internet content
I also want to be able to start watching content in my living room and continue in my bed and when I flake out I'd like to continue the next day.
Imagine the last nine years if you could only buy CDs and not individual songs.
That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.
I still get excited today when one of my favourite bands releases a new album. Sure maybe I don't like all the songs as much but even today I only ever listen to a whole album or nothing. That way you get to hear tracks that will never get played on the radio and that you would probably never discover otherwise. Album tracks get to the heart and soul of who a band really are and what their music is all about.
There is a whole generation of kids growing up listening to shitty compressed music, cherry picking their songs from the "hits" and listening to it all on crappy headphones or crappy iPod speakers. It's all wrong IMHO.
That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.
I still get excited today when one of my favourite bands releases a new album. Sure maybe I don't like all the songs as much but even today I only ever listen to a whole album or nothing. That way you get to hear tracks that will never get played on the radio and that you would probably never discover otherwise. Album tracks get to the heart and soul of who a band really are and what their music is all about.
There is a whole generation of kids growing up listening to shitty compressed music, cherry picking their songs from the "hits" and listening to it all on crappy headphones or crappy iPod speakers. It's all wrong IMHO.
One could make the argument that recording artists have to be more focused on producing more hits instead of sliding 10 filler songs into a 12 song album because of the Ã* la carte model. You want to sell more music... then make more good music.
I know Steve hated them, but if the TV doesn't include an integrated CableCard, then people would still need an external box. And I thought the whole point of AppleTV was simplicity. So hopefully everything is included so all my TV watching options are covered.
If they really wanted to be forward thinking, they'd include an integrated Tru2Way card so things like VoD would work.
Missing the point of any Jobsian Apple TV. It won't be a cable device; it will be a network device, like any computer or smart phone, and its programming will come only through a new iTunes-like service. A new "walled garden." We won't be paying [insert name of your cable carrier], we'll be paying Apple.
Apple's strategy in the TV industry can not be tied exclusively to a television. The service would have to be accessible from multiple devices including the Apple TV, regular Mac computers, the iPad, the iPhone, even the Touch.
A television model would be a compliment to that service, not the sole means of accessing it. I don't think Apple has failed to launch its service because of technical hurdles. Rather what has delayed it is that deals for content are hard to ink. Once those deals for content are secured, we'll see a rapid rollout of complimentary technology, including an Apple-branded TV.
It makes sense to have an approach to television content delivery that means one has access to that content from a plethora of devices. No doubt there are plenty of people who would love to be able to start a program on the living room big screen and finish the program off on the go, if the situation called for that. Since Apple dominates the mobile space like no other company, it is best positioned to offer that sort of service. A big-screen set would then make a logical addition to the mix, taking a consumer right through the process with an Apple product slotted in for every scenario.
Missing the point of any Jobsian Apple TV. It won't be a cable device; it will be a network device, like any computer or smart phone, and its programming will come only through a new iTunes-like service. A new "walled garden." We won't be paying [insert name of your cable carrier], we'll be paying Apple.
Which will only work if/when the content carriers decide to put their content inside the walled garden. And I'm not just talking about Fox/CBS/NBC/ABC. I'm talking about CNN, TBS, Food Network and the holy grail of cable TV, ESPN.
Rest assured, in order to get this content, Apple will have to pay. And not just a flat rate. NBC and CBS and Fox will do what they have done for years to the cable cos--they will tell Apple that if they want ESPN, they will need to pay for ABC Family. If you want USA, the most watched cable channel, you'll need to buy SciFy. And so on.
Also just an afterthought--but how many people have good enough home network that they can get HD quality streaming TV, 24 hours a day? And how many homes have more than one TV? Lots. 1080p * 24fps * 2 streams at least == 10Mbs speed at least. And that's just for the TV(s). If you want to use your Internet on top of that…forget it. Heck my AppleTV starts to stutter when streaming from iTunes if I also try to download an OS X update, and I have Comcast's top speed package.
Oh, and where do people that kind of high bandwidth from? Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon FiOS, AT&T Uvers…the same companies that also offer TV service.
Not saying it's impossible, but I'd need to know the logistics first.
Comments
if they top out at 42" i won't bother - and i HOPE Apple doesn't pretend to know what size TV everyone should have.
as for the iPhone tangent, i hope it goes to a 4" screen @ 1024x768.
as for the iPhone tangent, i hope it goes to a 4" screen @ 1024x768.
That's crazy. The iPhone is 3:2, not 4:3.
I know Steve hated them, but if the TV doesn't include an integrated CableCard, then people would still need an external box. And I thought the whole point of AppleTV was simplicity. So hopefully everything is included so all my TV watching options are covered.
If they really wanted to be forward thinking, they'd include an integrated Tru2Way card so things like VoD would work.
What if it's like some of the TV apps out there? The Time Warner, HBO, TNT, Cinemax apps all just have you authenticate your cable subscription to access them. They could use something similar for a television without a cable card or set top box.
It will look a bit out of place for someone to back their pickup truck to an Apple store to load their 50" Apple TV.
What seems as an obvious evolution to create such a product, just feels so disconnected to me.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Or see it when I believe it.
When you think of the form factor involved, it doesn't seem feasible for such sets to be sold directly out of the typical Apple Store.
It'll be hard enough to display them in-store, but impossible to store them on-site. They'd have to just ship them after you order in the store or on-line.
The only "first in a line" device that I've ever seen refer to itself as such is the EV-1.
I'm confused why people think that my point doesn't stand, though. Any product that is the first product in a line of numbered products is the first product by number.
Sure, but there's a big difference between a name and a convenient means of reference. My brother is my first brother, but "first brother" is not his name any more than my second brother's name is "brother 2." For the first little bit my brother was, "my new brother." It's just a reference. What's confusing about that?
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Fire away.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Imagine the last nine years if you could only buy CDs and not individual songs.
Yes, it has only been nine years.
Apple is exactly the company to fix television. They just don't have to MAKE a television to do it.
To what end. What would make a higher CPU needed in the phone. The highest load is graphics and the A5x has offloaded that to the better gpu. Frankly I think Apple is looking at the iPad as the computer killer, not the iPhone. So the iPad will likely led, not follow, on processor/SoC upgrades
I agree, what would the iPhone gain with more speed? What Apple could do is include the advanced battery design that they created for the new iPad. That would allow Apple to upgrade the iPhone with newer Qualicom chips for faster data delivery without a talk-time hit.
Perhaps, if the timing is right, Apple could change out the CPU/GPU chip for one with a smaller die size. I have no idea what the time-line may be on that possibility.
I'm going to place myself directly in the crosshairs here...
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Fire away.
The available programming is BORING. You have to spend too much to get the channels you want. Furthermore, I want the ability to make a little Steve Jobs avatar that could run out onto the field during a national championship game and steal the ball and run with it. I want the ability to interrupt poorly produced commercials and interject my own commentary.
Apple will make all that possible.
Furthermore, I want the ability to make a little Steve Jobs avatar that could run out onto the field during a national championship game and steal the ball and run with it.
Sony has patents for that.
I want the ability to interrupt poorly produced commercials and interject my own commentary.
Mystery Commerical Theater 3000!
I'm going to place myself directly in the crosshairs here...
What's wrong with "TV" as it is, now?
Between my iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and internet-connected Bravia I can pretty much watch whatever I want, wherever I want, with whatever-sized audience I want. And it looks and sounds great.
I'm not sure Apple is the company to solve the "distribution problem."
Fire away.
Well... it can be done better. At least Jonathan Ive thinks so.
Imagine the last nine years if you could only buy CDs and not individual songs.
That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.
I still get excited today when one of my favourite bands releases a new album. Sure maybe I don't like all the songs as much but even today I only ever listen to a whole album or nothing. That way you get to hear tracks that will never get played on the radio and that you would probably never discover otherwise. Album tracks get to the heart and soul of who a band really are and what their music is all about.
There is a whole generation of kids growing up listening to shitty compressed music, cherry picking their songs from the "hits" and listening to it all on crappy headphones or crappy iPod speakers. It's all wrong IMHO.
Well... it can be done better. At least Jonathan Ive thinks so.
The new TV will come with a 7.85" touch screen remote.
That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.
I still get excited today when one of my favourite bands releases a new album. Sure maybe I don't like all the songs as much but even today I only ever listen to a whole album or nothing. That way you get to hear tracks that will never get played on the radio and that you would probably never discover otherwise. Album tracks get to the heart and soul of who a band really are and what their music is all about.
There is a whole generation of kids growing up listening to shitty compressed music, cherry picking their songs from the "hits" and listening to it all on crappy headphones or crappy iPod speakers. It's all wrong IMHO.
One could make the argument that recording artists have to be more focused on producing more hits instead of sliding 10 filler songs into a 12 song album because of the Ã* la carte model. You want to sell more music... then make more good music.
I know Steve hated them, but if the TV doesn't include an integrated CableCard, then people would still need an external box. And I thought the whole point of AppleTV was simplicity. So hopefully everything is included so all my TV watching options are covered.
If they really wanted to be forward thinking, they'd include an integrated Tru2Way card so things like VoD would work.
Missing the point of any Jobsian Apple TV. It won't be a cable device; it will be a network device, like any computer or smart phone, and its programming will come only through a new iTunes-like service. A new "walled garden." We won't be paying [insert name of your cable carrier], we'll be paying Apple.
A television model would be a compliment to that service, not the sole means of accessing it. I don't think Apple has failed to launch its service because of technical hurdles. Rather what has delayed it is that deals for content are hard to ink. Once those deals for content are secured, we'll see a rapid rollout of complimentary technology, including an Apple-branded TV.
It makes sense to have an approach to television content delivery that means one has access to that content from a plethora of devices. No doubt there are plenty of people who would love to be able to start a program on the living room big screen and finish the program off on the go, if the situation called for that. Since Apple dominates the mobile space like no other company, it is best positioned to offer that sort of service. A big-screen set would then make a logical addition to the mix, taking a consumer right through the process with an Apple product slotted in for every scenario.
Missing the point of any Jobsian Apple TV. It won't be a cable device; it will be a network device, like any computer or smart phone, and its programming will come only through a new iTunes-like service. A new "walled garden." We won't be paying [insert name of your cable carrier], we'll be paying Apple.
Which will only work if/when the content carriers decide to put their content inside the walled garden. And I'm not just talking about Fox/CBS/NBC/ABC. I'm talking about CNN, TBS, Food Network and the holy grail of cable TV, ESPN.
Rest assured, in order to get this content, Apple will have to pay. And not just a flat rate. NBC and CBS and Fox will do what they have done for years to the cable cos--they will tell Apple that if they want ESPN, they will need to pay for ABC Family. If you want USA, the most watched cable channel, you'll need to buy SciFy. And so on.
Also just an afterthought--but how many people have good enough home network that they can get HD quality streaming TV, 24 hours a day? And how many homes have more than one TV? Lots. 1080p * 24fps * 2 streams at least == 10Mbs speed at least. And that's just for the TV(s). If you want to use your Internet on top of that…forget it. Heck my AppleTV starts to stutter when streaming from iTunes if I also try to download an OS X update, and I have Comcast's top speed package.
Oh, and where do people that kind of high bandwidth from? Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon FiOS, AT&T Uvers…the same companies that also offer TV service.
Not saying it's impossible, but I'd need to know the logistics first.