or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Evidence points toward Apple releasing HDTV this year - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Evidence points toward Apple releasing HDTV this year - report - Page 3

post #81 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by samwell View Post

Where's Ireland?

With Carmen San Diego.
post #82 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

They could make iBoard though.

Came here to say this.

Apple has really raised the bar on multi-touch user interfaces. Microsoft has the Surface, but it's expensive and aimed at developers rather than as a consumer product. I would hope that Apple has 50" wall-mounted iPad-like devices in their labs.

Until the aTV grows up, I really don't see a point in Apple entering the crowded and thin-magrin TV market.

- Jasen.
post #83 of 198
A primary part of Apple's consumer products is the ability to offer an Apple controlled content service along with the product. Television studios are fighting really hard to maintain complete control of their content in a way that would not be inline with the type of service Apple would be willing to provide. Among many others this is the major reason why Apple is not getting into televisions.



Time Warner Cable and Viacom sue over iPad app
post #84 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Among many other this is the major reason why Apple is not getting into televisions.

image: http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/as...mewarnerhd.jpg

Time Warner Cable and Viacom sue over iPad app

And lets not forget the GoogleTV that died because content owners didnt want it superceding traditional television outlets, there bread-and-butter.

I dont think many realize how absolutely complex this nut is to break. Why people think that slapping an Apple logo on an HDTV with a built in AppleTV will resolve it beyond me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #85 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

i was responding more to the idea of apple partnering with LG to produce the TVs.

Apple already have a close relationship with LG:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=94181
post #86 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peleas View Post

... Remember Steve Jobs mantra: The PC is dead. ...

What are you talking about? Steve Jobs has never said, nor even intimated that "the PC is dead."

One thing you can be certain of is that Apple will not enter the TV market without a good reason to do so which means a product that can differentiate itself from the herd, and that people will pay a little bit more to obtain.

It's also a 100% certain lock that if they do build a TV it won't do 'cable' "aerial' or any of that old standards junk, so we are really talking about "Internet TV" which is exactly what the current Apple TV already is.

In other words simply attaching a screen to the current Apple TV would give us a future "Apple TV." This will only happen when the screen they are attaching has some wonderful quality that you can't do without and is different from all other TV screens.

So all in all it doesn't look to be happening any time soon.
post #87 of 198
You are right Apple would not follow any of these traditional broadcast models. It would be something completely different. Television studios are scared to death of any experimentation that they feel is a threat to their current business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's also a 100% certain lock that if they do build a TV it won't do 'cable' "aerial' or any of that old standards junk, so we are really talking about "Internet TV" which is exactly what the current Apple TV already is.
post #88 of 198
The 27" iMac has a bi-directional Display Port. Apogee is rumored to be releasing an HDMI adapter which will theoretically allow you to input any HDMI source such as an xbox, blu ray, or cable tv to be viewable on the iMac.

Maybe the Apple HDTV is really just a 50" iMac.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #89 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by dish View Post

true....the only thing crazier than Apple making a television is Apple making a phone (and that would really never happen).

A poor, trite analogy.

Apple can make an add-on to a TV that controls the TV. It cannot do so for a phone.

Apple, in fact, MUST make the entire phone hardware in order for the phone to perform as an iPhone. The question before us is: Why would Apple need to make the entire TV hardware, rather than a controller/add-on device? Possible reasons include:

• The TV will incorporate a touch screen.
(Obviously, that's not going to happen.)

• The TV will incorporate some sort of remote allowing you to point at an area of the screen and control it.
(This indeed seems like an Apple approach. But there are other ways to achieve this besides building the entire TV, as Wii and Kinect have demonstrated.)

What else could an Apple TV do that would necessitate Apple building the entire device? That is the question that must be answered before a serious analyst can claim that Apple is about to release a TV of some sort.

And if that question is successfully answered, another must follow: Why will this TV be so compelling that people will toss out their present TVs in favor of it? Because, in order for this to be successful, that is exactly what this product must do. That's a tall order.

It's one thing to take over the cell phone market. People upgrade their cell phones all the time. MP3 player market? Well, Apple pretty much created that one. Same for the tablet market.

But millions of people have no plans to get rid of their TVs, unless they are getting rid of a tube and moving up to HDTV. That process has been going on for years. People will not dump their HDTVs for an Apple version just so they can surf the web (they can do that more comfortably with an iPad) or so they can play games (they can do that quite well already with many add-on devices).

3D, maybe? Please. People don't know what to do with so-called 3D TV as it already exists.

There's just no compelling reason, that I can see, for Apple to build - or for people to buy - an Apple-branded HDTV. Some die-hard Apple fans and collectors would buy them, but the general public (Apple's REAL audience) has no compelling reason to.

If you can think of a compelling reason for this product - one that would have people dumping their existing HDTVs and spending a thousand dollars or so in a down economy - I'd love to hear it.

That's not to say Apple would not LICENSE technology to an existing TV maker, and let them take a crack at it. Hell, they already do that sort of thing (mainly in the stereo business). But make their own TVs? WHY?
post #90 of 198
If Apple does create a TV, it would have to prove a method to supply Apple with more earnings than just selling the device itself. Do you think they make more money off the iPhone or the apps and service? And the Apple way is to make things thin and light, well what can get thinner than a LED TV? Those are pretty darn thin already. (but they have terrible speakers, in my opinion)

What are the pluses to Apple producing their own TV?

Screen Resolution? (they already have 1080i and such)

Facetime? (it they allow the apple tv to have a built in camera and then a mount to mount to the top of the TV, with built in microphone, that would be easier and better (Works with what you already have, more willing to purchase, cheaper initial investment))

Streaming Movies or music? (already done with current Apple TV)

Touch Screen? (I think it would be annoying to have a touch screen TV, not to mention people "touching" too hard and breaking the screen)

Apps? (like what, games? You still need a remote to play. Weather / news /sports / productivity apps? You still need a keyboard, and they have News already, it would just be news on demand, which can be solved a lot cheaper and easier than a new TV)

Voice Recognition? (How annoying to say "channel up, channel up, ........" to do anything.)


Even if any of these are good idea, investing in making a TV would be a crazy amount of money, and I still dont think people would buy them, Apple would be better off buying a TV company and just putting the logo on it, but still, don't see them making enough money for the effort.

An Apple Stand alone TV is not worth the effort, but a beefed up apple TV that costs $200 would be a lot smarted route. Think playing a board game on the iPad with output to a apple TV, thus making the iPad the controller, with multiple players using other iPad's or iPhones as their controllers and the actual board on the TV? That's worth investing money into , not your own TV. It would be pretty hard for apple to create some new TV that is far far better than what is currently out there (think iPhone when it was announced). If they are not far far better, people will say Apple has fallen off. That would be more negative than positive.


Last thought, would the iPhone have sold as much if it was $500 with a new contract? No, never. Cheaper is better in today's economy. Think TV's, people buy expensive TV's, but that market is small, more people buy cheaper TV's that can do the same thing, but have slightly less impressive specs / size / weight. Again Apple makes TONS more off apps and service than the product, they would be dumb to try and change that.
post #91 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by samwell View Post

Where's Ireland?

At the back of the soup kitchen line; they are out of money don't you know.
post #92 of 198
Not sure what they'll bring to the table. It would be better if they worked with OEMs to include built-in AppleTVs. TV tech is changing rapidly so maybe they'll bring some sanity to the market.
post #93 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

"They" said Apple would fail.

"They" said the iPod would fail.

"They" said the iPhone would fail.

"They" said the retail stores were a stupid idea and would fail.

"They" said the iPad would be an epic fail.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see an Apple HDTV that's basically an iOS device with a really big screen and a digital tuner. And when it shows up it will also be declared DOA. After it takes off wildly we will then be treated to Android HDTVs by Asus, Acer, HTC, and all the other copycat followers only theirs will be "better" because they're open and run Android. A year later Microsoft will annouce a WM7 HDTV. The tech pundits will be predicting Apple HDTV killers are just around the corner.

Ha ha ha!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #94 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

If you can think of a compelling reason for this product - one that would have people dumping their existing HDTVs and spending a thousand dollars or so in a down economy - I'd love to hear it.

They don't have to dump their old tv. People don't dump their old iMacs yet they continue to upgrade. Maybe I put the old 42" on the patio or in the bedroom and the new 50" in the living room, den or family room.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #95 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_K View Post

Agreed. They don't have a choice. In 15 years Apple will even make refrigerators.
Do you guys remember that interview with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in 2007?
Steve said that "there will be a computer in everything" in the future. In every devices.
So if that will be the case, then Apple has all the reasons in the world to build them.

A refrigerator is pushing it.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #96 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Not sure what they'll bring to the table. It would be better if they worked with OEMs to include built-in AppleTVs. TV tech is changing rapidly so maybe they'll bring some sanity to the market.

That makes a lot more sense to me. Get the AppleTV with a FaceTime camera into TVs. That sounds like an achievable goal that could yield high results. Apple could play the TV vendors off each other the way it has with the iPhone and carriers.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #97 of 198
Personally, I don't see Apple trying to make an Apple HDTV. There just isn't enough reason for it. That said, I think its little black box isn't feature complete. While what it does, it does well; it just doesn't do enough. If you want people to use the Apple TV, and to use it more exclusively, I think it needs to go more of a Internet Device/Game Console route. Here is the how, and why:

1) Internet Device: Google tried to do it, with a kludgy keyboard, and an even worse interface. Apple already has a kick-ass browser in its iOS devices. There should be an easy way to browse the internet using your existing iOS device, that either streams it from your device to the screen or just straight up from the aTV. I think it will be streamed to the TV from the iOS device. Which brings us to....

2) Game Console: Whether Apple intended it to happen or not, they have one of the best mobile gaming consoles out there. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are running scared because of Apple's meteoric rise in mobile gaming. If you think they aren't, then you have blinders on. All three rely heavily on licensing costs on the developers, and the selling of physical media for their consoles; Apple doesn't on both counts. Now, if anyone has hooked up Chopper 2 on their iPad, played it on the HDTV while playing it via remote on your iPhone know there is real value here. I can see Apple opening up AirPlay to third-party developers (video and audio stream) so it can be streamed on their aTV. Especially if they open it up to where the stream is separate from the normal view.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #98 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

If it's not plasma count me out.

I own a plasma. A Kuro. I far prefer plasma. I hope they make a plasma. However, I have my doubts it will be a plasma.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #99 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Maybe the Apple HDTV is really just a 50" iMac.

Eh, no.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #100 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

Let's hope Apple isn't heading toward being the next Sony; making high quality products but with such a large catalog, they aren't particularly good at anything. Their Mac business seems to be on the backburner somewhat recently, it's not as profitable as iOS so they don't seem to be pushing it as much.

How can you possibly say this? Think about it Apple currently has some of the hottest selling laptops on the market. Laptops that are bleeding edge machines like the AIRs or the new Sandy Bridge MBPs.

Beyond that Mac OS/X gets regular updates.
Quote:
I'd be surprised if Apple announced a TV, as there seems to be very slim profit margins in that area. Apple'd have to add some really, really awesome features to warrant paying the "Apple Tax" on a TV. The AppleTV at the moment is well priced, anyone can give it a go. However, a $2000 TV requires somewhat more consideration, and as has been said before, most people go for the biggest and cheapest. Apple's buying power could help, perhaps by lowering the cost of large LCD/plasma panels from manufacturers.

It isn't that simple, people don't go for the biggest and cheapest unless they are complete idiots. Further very simple features like FaceTime would be extremely attractive. An Apple TV doesn't have to be expensive either, rather it has to have the right feature set.

Go into any appliance store and what do you see but a bunch of marketing of features. Features by the way that many consumers never use, don't understand or don't really need. Imagine if Apple where to build a TV with features consumers understand, find useful and don't inflate the cost of the TV?

People seem to think that the functionality Apple needs to add costs slot. Yet AppleTV2 costs like $100 bucks or so. That cost though is offset by the reality that all TVs these days have some sort of computational capability. The point is Apple can add an awful lot of additional capability for a hundred bucks. So think about what it would be like if Apple integrated FaceTime, iOS device support, gaming, e-mail (yes e-mail or maybe advanced messaging) and other functions into a TV that costs a few bucks more than a run of the mill machine.

I think such a machine is very possible. Even then I'd be surprised if it is a large screen device but the again I'm still wishing for a wide screen iPad like device of around 7" that can do all of this.
post #101 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am in the camp that Ireland will be proved right on this.

Makes the utmost logical sense for Apple.

No, it makes no sense. Apple produces high-end, high margin products where they bring something unique to the table.

High-end TVs, while critically acclaimed by their niche users, don't sell well. Just ask Pioneer about their Kuro line, which they had to abandon and ask Sony about their XBR8, for which they had to drop the high-end tech in the XBR9, 10 and more recent series.

Other TV manufacturers have brought an elegance to the body trim of their TVs that's as nice as what Apple does in I.D.

You think Apple all but abandoned selling monitors, but will try and sell a TV? What will an Apple TV have that Panasonic Plasmas, Sony or Sanyo don't already have? One thing I think those sets lack are good user interfaces. But Apple's UI for Apple TV doesn't impress me either. While it's simple, it's also unsophisticated. Apple hasn't even been interested in supporting Blu-ray. They seem perfectly content with such artifacts as video blocking on their "HD" downloads.

An Apple TV would probably have a high-end price, but lack high-end features, such as ISF controls that permit calibrators to properly align the sets. And since Apple prefers to go it alone, it probably wouldn't be THX certified either.

I don't see it happening.
post #102 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I don't buy it, and I never will. Even if Apple does release a TV, I would consider it a really stupid move.

Face it, a TV is nowadays nothing more than a dumb screen. It's the things you connect to your TV that make it an awesome device. Your cable settop box, your BluRay player, your XBox 360. That's what makes people like sitting in front of the TV. The TV itself is a dumb commodity product.

So in stead of making a TV, I think Apple should make a device that connects to your TV. Something that allows you to watch all your cool iTunes content on that big screen in your living room. It would be cool if this little box would also allow AirPlay streaming and.. oh wait... I guess they already sell one of these little boxes.

So yeah, all Apple needs to do is make the Apple TV as attractive as possible by adding cool new revolutionary features to it. It's only 99 bucks and people can connect it either a $250 WallMart piece of junk, or a $4000 high end Sony TV.

There is absolutely ZERO reason why Apple would actually make a TV set. I challenge you to give me one.

I agree with this sentiment. As a single person living in a small apartment I have a 23" mat screen computer monitor. That is plenty big for me sitting just four feet away from the screen. I haven't turned on my TV in over a year. The only thing I might want to change is having a monitor with a faster refresh rate. I use Netflix and Fancast to watch TV shows and movies. Sometimes I'll go directly to a TV network site and watch shows (except CBS because they don't do streaming well).

I don't know how many people out there are similar to me. Broadcast TV isn't interesting to me. I don't watch TV news. I get it from the internet and very brief radio news in the first four minutes of each hour.

What could Apple do with a larger screen product that they can't already do with an Apple TV? It would make better sense that Apple make the Apple TV product do more things with the screen of choice already in the consumers home. Apple computers come with loads of drivers for numerous hardware devices. They could do the same with different TV products within Apple TV. That way the experience would be perfect no matter which brand or size screen was used.

Think about this; what is the average lifespan of a computer and what is the average lifespan of a TV? TVs last a long time. Plasma screens are supposed to last at least twelve years and LCDs should last about seventeen years before failure. I read that statistic a few years ago in a Consumer Reports magazine comparing TVs. Apple makes its money on other devices that don't last that long, or at least most of them get upgraded before that long length of time. Why should Apple start into a business where the products have such a long lifespan? That would mean much less profit over the long run.
post #103 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

Find me an HDTV from any manufacturer, and Apple could sell the same size TV for at least $100-200 more. It's called brand loyalty, and providing value for the money spent (better UI, more content, better integration with iDevices, better aesthetic design, etc). Of course, the haters and nay-sayers will merely point at the screen size and compare it to Vizio, thereby calling the Apple product needlessly overpriced. So be it.

Just for the sake of argument, say Apple can get $150 more per TV for the same spec. On a $1500-$2000 set, that's 10% more than the generic makers. Not too shabby, however, my original question stands,
What's the total profit margin?

Compared that to the profit margin of other Apple products, then tell me if it's a worthwhile market for Apple to get into.
post #104 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Just for the sake of argument, say Apple can get $150 more per TV for the same spec. On a $1500-$2000 set, that's 10% more than the generic makers. Not too shabby, however, my original question stands,
What's the total profit margin?

Compared that to the profit margin of other Apple products, then tell me if it's a worthwhile market for Apple to get into.

Apple's profit margin, across all of its product lines, is currently 20%.

Given your numbers above (and assuming a competitor baseline of 10%), something like 20% is what it will be.
post #105 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

No, it makes no sense. ....

High-end TVs, while critically acclaimed by their niche users, don't sell well. Just ask Pioneer about their Kuro line, ......

It's not just the hardware. It's the software, and now, perhaps more importantly, the ecosystem.
post #106 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Apple's profit margin, across all of its product lines, is currently 20%.

Given your numbers above (and assuming a competitor baseline of 10%), something like 20% is what it will be.

" Sony Corp. (6758.TO) said Thursday its net profit in the October to December period fell 8.6% from a year earlier, weighed by the strong yen and thin margins in its television business.
"
Now, do you want to revise your assumption on competitor's baseline of 10% profit margin?

P.S. As a group, Sony's Revenue slipped 1.4% from a year earlier to Y2.206 trillion, while operating profit dropped 5.9% to Y137.5 billion. So that's about 6%. If TV business was making 10%, you think Sony would single it out as "thin margins"?

PS2: Your number on Apple's profit margin is also wrong. Their gross margin is 40%, operating margin is around 28%. Their iPhone is generating 60% gross margin, while iPad generates nearly 40%. The perspective changes dramatically when you have the right numbers, doesn't it.
post #107 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I don't buy it, and I never will. Even if Apple does release a TV, I would consider it a really stupid move.

Face it, a TV is nowadays nothing more than a dumb screen. It's the things you connect to your TV that make it an awesome device. Your cable settop box, your BluRay player, your XBox 360. That's what makes people like sitting in front of the TV. The TV itself is a dumb commodity product.

So in stead of making a TV, I think Apple should make a device that connects to your TV. Something that allows you to watch all your cool iTunes content on that big screen in your living room. It would be cool if this little box would also allow AirPlay streaming and.. oh wait... I guess they already sell one of these little boxes.

So yeah, all Apple needs to do is make the Apple TV as attractive as possible by adding cool new revolutionary features to it. It's only 99 bucks and people can connect it either a $250 WallMart piece of junk, or a $4000 high end Sony TV.

There is absolutely ZERO reason why Apple would actually make a TV set. I challenge you to give me one.

Because people are sick and tired of their TV area looking like an electronic mess -- as you so very well describe. Not to mention all the media incompatibilities you also do such a good job of describing.

The day we plugged a mini into our tv was the day we threw all that junk in the garbage.
post #108 of 198
Home Cinema Display
  • Apple should not do this - leave it to the guys that are already doing it.
  • TV manufacturers need to keep working on the weight, energy consumption, viewing angles, brightness, contrast etc.
  • Various sizes of course
  • Build it for long life and durability - 7+ years
  • They should also strip out everything except the hardware that supports the display - power supply and something to bring in the signal (x1 HDMI or ThunderBolt - or whatever that newfangled port is). Not even a tuner.

AV Amp
  • Someone could take a look at this - maybe Apple, but probably not
  • This box might have a more frequent update cycle than the TV - but still in the range of 5+ years
  • Strip out all the legacy ports and connectors and only support HDMI sources
  • Make it small - unlike the enormous and hot Onkyo AV amp I have right now
  • Has all the right surround sound circuitry and speaker connectors you might need
  • Try to figure a way to reduce the rat's nest of cables
  • Ideally there should only be one cable going up to the display - if it can carry the signal and sufficient power together then wonderful!

Sources
  • Cable | Satellite | Terrestrial Digital/PVR - I guess this is where all the current competition is. Probably have rapid turnover and evolution of these components - 2-3 year life cycle
  • Media Player - these might end-of-life soon? I very rarely use mine.
  • Gaming devices
  • Apple TV

Opportunities for Apple as already mentioned by others
  • The controller - iPhone/iPad coming along nicely
  • The interface - as above?
  • Building a conduit through which I can access content so that eventually none of the boxes except the Apple TV are connected to the AV Amp

Challenges
  • Creating deals with the content providers to allow on-demand distribution - this is why aTV is currently only a hobby
  • Pulling this all together in a very heterogenous global market place
  • Enough affordable bandwidth to enough homes
post #109 of 198
I think the real elephant in the room is the way you chose your input source through your home theater or home stereo system ( cable box, blue ray, atv, game box, iPod, etc.). I would get in line for an iOS device handled this as well as hijack the control of the source in use. The hard part would be what to do about the audio amplifier, built in leaves the question of how good to make it ( high power free of distortion) as well as heat and size. A separate amp is the way to go but a very hard sell to anyone but wealthy audiophiles. Anyway I want an iOS home theater system.
post #110 of 198
There are a few internet-connected TVs that run apps already. Apple can wait for that market to start heating up, and for the Sonys and Samsungs (and of course the Googles) of the world to make crucial mistakes. They will be playing poker with their cards face-up for Apple to see.

It'll be just like the MP3 player market was in 2001. One or two moderately successful competitors, plenty of low-quality products, and no truly easy-to-use hardware and software combo. You had to mount the players as hard drives and drag and drop files into folders. Or you had to use primitive music player software to do the copying for you.

All crushed by iTunes + iPod, and Apple is surely planning to crush the connected TV / app TV space as well. The connected TV market is going to be huge. And those TVs can and will run apps. Apple TV's circuit board is small enough to be embedded in even the thinnest TVs. You do the math.

So will Apple TV be able to run apps? Yup. It has always been able to run apps. The whole Apple TV experience is an app running on iOS. The devil is in the details, of course. HDTV currently has a pixel geometry of 1920x1080. This is a trivial 2x pixel-double from iPhone's 960x640. But if you also double the vertical resolution you end up with 1920x1280. An extra 200 pixels to either cut off the top and/or bottom of the app on HDTV.

Apple could force developers to handle a 3rd screen geometry (16:9 1920x1080) in addition to the iPad's 4:3 1024x768 and iPhone / iPod touch 3:2 960x640. Or, and this is a little crazy speculation here, Apple could build their own TV sets with 1920x1280 screens. With an extra 200 pixels along the bottom for whatever they want to use it for. An iOS-like Tab Bar maybe? An area for text messages and/or banner scrolls? Who knows?

A custom 1920x1280 TV screen would allow current iOS 4.x apps to run unmodified on Apple's HDTV screens with 2x horizontal and vertical line doubling. Exactly the way iOS 3.x apps originally ran on iPhone 4. Eventually, as high-resolution LCD (and AMOLED) screen costs come down, iPad and iPhone could get 1920x1440 (4:3) and 1920x1280 (3:2) screens. No pixel doubling needed, and there would be only two geometries to support. Just like there are today.

Should be interesting. But I doubt Apple wants to get into the internet + app TV market this year. Better to wait for others to make their fatal mistakes first, then swoop in with iTunes + App Store for built-in Apple TV. Ultimately, Apple could license Apple TV to the other manufacturers. Apple will get paid while letting the others fight over ever-shrinking hardware margins.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #111 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It isn't that simple, people don't go for the biggest and cheapest unless they are complete idiots. Further very simple features like FaceTime would be extremely attractive. An Apple TV doesn't have to be expensive either, rather it has to have the right feature set.

Facetime and video conferencing has always been mostly a gimick for a very long time. I could go home and get FaceTime for my iMac at which point I'd still have no one to use it with as no one I know has an iOS device or a Mac outside of a few coworkers. Unless the FaceTime protocol gets picked up by a lot more manufacturers it will remain a gimick. At a press conference it has a wow factor but that's about it.

Quote:
People seem to think that the functionality Apple needs to add costs slot. Yet AppleTV2 costs like $100 bucks or so. That cost though is offset by the reality that all TVs these days have some sort of computational capability. The point is Apple can add an awful lot of additional capability for a hundred bucks. So think about what it would be like if Apple integrated FaceTime, iOS device support, gaming, e-mail (yes e-mail or maybe advanced messaging) and other functions into a TV that costs a few bucks more than a run of the mill machine.

FaceTime? Apple could activate the USB port on AppleTV's and sell a camera right now. iOS device support? For what? To act as a remote? Really expensive remote. Gaming? I'm guessing an iOS device as the controller, adding hundreds of dollars to the real cost (and that's just for one player). E-mail? How are you going to compose an email? Via an iOS device that again adds hundreds of dollars to the real cost of the TV.

Every feature you listed beyond FaceTime requires the addition of multi hundred dollar iOS device, not just the $100 you stated.

And really, after watching the AppleTV stagnate for years, would you really have much faith that Apple would put much effort into a TV especially if sales were poor?
post #112 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Has to be the worst article in a while, Apple will never make a television set.


Jobs loves Sony. I LOVE my Apple TV v2 and Sony Bravia HDTV combo! Coincedence? I think not.
post #113 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Their TV won't have a camera.

It'll have 2.
post #114 of 198
I think they have to do it. We know googles plans for tv and know Microsoft is building windows embedded for tv. So ultimately iOS needs needs to be in a tv. They have to do it themselves as that's apples claim for quality.

The only problem is if it will just be a repeat of the Apple hifi.
post #115 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

Who says the $100B TV market is "lucrative"? Let's see the evidence.

There are scores of TV manufacturers and prices have been on a constant decline for years as the products become more and more commoditized. Established players like Sony have been severely bruised in the process. Unless Apple can bring something sufficiently fresh to the party, as they did with the iPhone in 2007, I don't why they'd want to wrestle in the particular mud pit.

That's the key thing, Apple needs to have something compelling. If they think they have a compelling idea that can get the buyers, then they'll do it. That's the tough part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Jobs has a plasma.

How do you know that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlivierL View Post

Apple is ALREADY making TV Sets : this is called a HDMI TV + Apple TV.

To call that an Apple made TV set is disingenuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Yeah, imagine watching 640 x 480 pixels in all it's splendor on a HDTV...

I don't think Facetime is resolution-fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

At what profit margin?

It really depends on what kind of TV you're talking about. Nice 50" TVs can be had for less than $1000, if Apple makes a compelling 50" for $1500, that might be enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

most TV's have glossy screens. I was limited to 2 brands when I was shopping for mine last year.

I found zero plasma's with a matte screen. only Sony and Samsung make matte (LED/LCD @52")

Not all Samsung plasmas are glossy, I have one that has a glass smooth surface with a special surface treatment that cancels most reflections like camera lenses, anti-reflective eyeglasses and I've even seen CRTs with the treatment. Matte is a low-tech anti-glare anyway, it's just a finely roughed-up surface which scatters incident light. The good anti-glare doesn't have a rough surface, nor does it have harsh glare like a normal glass surface, I think this is much better than plain glossy or matte.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Facetime and video conferencing has always been mostly a gimick for a very long time.

FaceTime hasn't even been around for a year. Video conferencing before that has been relatively clumsy. I had to futz with my grandma's computer to get Skype video chat to work, I don't know if anyoneone else in my family would have been able to figure that out.

Quote:
And really, after watching the AppleTV stagnate for years, would you really have much faith that Apple would put much effort into a TV especially if sales were poor?

AppleTV sales have picked up since the last update.
post #116 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Has to be the worst article in a while, Apple will never make a television set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker275 View Post


Maybe you're being sarcastic and I just don't get it but... I ask why not? They've done it before... the Macintosh TV back in 1995.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isnt the best argument to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_TV

We can speculate 24/7 as to what Apple may or may not do in the next few months... but to say Apple will "NEVER" make a TV is really out there. Never is a very long time. Given that Apple has in fact produced a TV set integrated with the Mac, short lived as it was basically nulls that argument. Okay, I guess there is a technical difference between "will" (future) and "would" (past, present & future).

But the company as a whole has moved from being computer centric to consumer electronics centric and for 4 years has been making the Apple TV. The user interface with a TV/Cable box/VCR/DVR/Game controller.... is just crap. The user interface is what Apple has always done well and it's a compelling reason for why they MIGHT make a TV.

So. Is Apple releasing a TV set this June. Probably not. This October? I wouldn't bet too much on it, but then again, penny ante poker gives me indigestion. 4 years form now? Sure, why the heck not? It is a hobby after all and things change. Heck, nobody at Apple even knows that answer, even if it is in fact a goal right now.

As for the old Mac TV, I almost bought one at Sears, but I had recently upgraded to a Centris and just couldn't justify the money. But, Solipsism, I checked out the link you provided. Interesting opening line: "The Macintosh TV was Apple's first attempt at computer-television integration." First attempt??? Hmmmm.
post #117 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

FaceTime hasn't even been around for a year. Video conferencing before that has been relatively clumsy. I had to futz with my grandma's computer to get Skype video chat to work, I don't know if anyoneone else in my family would have been able to figure that out.

The point is video conferencing is a niche product. It has a lot more wow factor then practical use. How many times have you been on a call and really felt the need to see the person on the other end? And again, until FaceTime makes it out of only Apple products, the actual usability of it is really low. Maybe your entire family and circle of friends is entirely Apple/iOS, but outside of coworkers the only person I know with my sister and she has a first gen iPad so no FaceTime for her.

Quote:
AppleTV sales have picked up since the last update.

That's feint praise considering how Apple was never willing to release sales numbers for the AppleTV 1. Even the announced 1 million for the second gen version is a fairly low number.
post #118 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am in the camp that Ireland will be proved right on this.

Can't.

First, his prediction was something silly like a HDTV in a year or two and that was a two or three years ago. This was back when we had insanity before major events and prediction threads.

Second, any prediction that Apple will develop a HDTV offering will be like stating that Apple will develop a smartphone offering and postulating a Blackberry like device. If they DO make a TV at some point it'll be equally NOT what folks are imagining as an Apple branded HDTV with an embedded aTV inside.
post #119 of 198
If it doesn't bring back smell-a-vision then I'm not interested.
post #120 of 198
i love AppleInsider's articles that bring insider information about new products and services from Apple. there are a lot of great articles here, but anything from an analyst?

"Evidence points toward Apple releasing HDTV this year" ???

what evidence? did Glenn Beck help assemble this evidence, and if so, does it undeniably link Apple to Bin-Laden? is Gene Munster's track record any better than Glenn Beck's? Munster should be wearing a tinfoil hat to keep any more of this "evidence" from seeping into his brain.

the profit margins in TV sales are razor thin, even compared to computers. as others have said in the comments above, apple makes the apple TV. connect it to any "stupid" television. I'd "analyze" * that Apple is negotiating with TV Manufacturers to include apple TV hardware built into the logic boards of their future models, so apple can rent content the same way netflix is available on blu-ray players. [yes, i bought a 1080p output device to watch streamed 480p content, but it was before the ATV2 came out]

* by "analyze" i mean "guess".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Evidence points toward Apple releasing HDTV this year - report