Apple rumored to be working on iOS-powered HDTVs for late 2011 - Page 2

Cool.... hope this rumor is right. Still have yet to buy a flat screen and ever since I heard rumor of this... someplace.... I decided to hold off. I always wondered why nobody was building a DVR right into the TV.

Good points. It needs to hit a price point that will make it an option for most enthusiastic Apple customers though.

I do not know if I believe the story, but I believe Apple is working on a TV. Google is working on a TV. Apple likely doesn't want to give Google an inch.

Further, it just makes sense. Lots of people go to Apple stores. Apple probably wants more products to put in those stores. It already has experience making everything that would generally go into a TV minus the tuner.

I only hope if the rumor is true, Apple goes with Sharp, not Samsung. Sharp 1) makes better panels, 2) has a better design flare then Samsung, and 3) shares Apple's displeasure with Samsung as it too has had to successfully sue Samsung for patent infringement.

As written, I think it's nonsense.

However, I COULD see Apple licensing the technology to TV vendors. Sort of like an AppleTV inside your HDTV. I think that could work out very well for everyone.

Unfortunately, Apple's experience with licensing has been lousy. Aside from the clone fiasco, Pippin was a stellar failure - but shouldn't have been. A game console and computer all in one and attached to your TV should have sold like hotcakes, but the product was never even launched.

Or right into the Mac, or Time Capsule, or Airport extreme. Really it's about exploiting the OS, the network, and the ecosystem.
OS X has all this power and scalability potential with technologies like Open GL and CL, GCD, etc. I want to see it in action and in use. Exploiting all parts of the whole ecosystem, not just a stand alone piece of it.

How about reasons it's not going to happen:

1. TV margins are razor thin.
2. Few consumers are going to pay a significant premium even for a better TV.
3. The market is immensely saturated and competition is intense.
4. A huge percentage of TVs are sold through mass market channels like Sam's Club, Walmart, Big Lots, etc - where there is absolutely no support available and no sales person to explain the advantages of the Apple HDTV.
5. An All-in-One TV makes no sense for home theatre. Can you imagine how bad the sound would be?

And so on.

Well said. Apple could also be highly competitive on the price as the price for high quality panels are dropping. I just bought a 40 LED Sharp TV for less then $700. A company like Sharp probably would love to partner with Apple if it moves more product.

So if I sign up for two years of programing with a content/service provider can I get an Apple 42" 1080p LCD tv for $200?

Seriously, I'm not going to upgrade my HDTV every two years because it won't run the latest iOS. I'd like to get 5-7 years out of my TVs.

I'd rather have a box I upgrade separately from everything else.

If I had to guess a display partner though it would be Samsung because of all the current legal flap.

I don't like the reasons. First, an Apple set would likely be sold at 1) Apple Stores, and 2) places like Best Buy where Apple has trained sales staff.

Second, margins are razor thin on PCs yet Apple is moving plenty of Macs far out pacing the industry all while both commanding higher margins and staying competitive on price.

Third, somebody brought up shipping costs. My 40 " Sharp TV weighs less then the Mac Pro.

This makes no sense because if you aren't buying an HDTV for it's picture quality, I'm not sure what you're spending money on.

Some of these negatives are very similar to what people thought about MP3 Players (now known as iPods) and cell phones (now known as iPhones [or smart phones a redefined category.])

Apple could approach TV in a similar way. In answer to your points:

1. Apple could redefine the product, add value competitors cannot reproduce, take the high end lucrative market, and slowly inch down.
2. Apple always targets the small lucrative segment first and lets the competitors fight for scraps.
3. Apple creates a new market and competes with itself. Innovation, quality, value, and scale allows Apple to make fat margins in a thin margin market.
4. Apple will sell at Apple stores and online. People who don't want an Apple TV can go to Walmart et al.
5. Thunderbolt or simple digital out solves that for those who want that experience. iTunes content from my computer delivered through my ATV 2G sounds great on my surround sound system.

And so on.

I don't believe it's true in the least. For starters, how would bundling iTunes with a TV blow Netflix away? I can pay $7.99/month and watch all the TV shows and movies I want. iTunes does not offer any comparable rental service. Also, I can watch Netflix on my Wii in one bedroom, PS3 in the living room, my Macbook Pros and iPhones. Even if Apple did offer a comparable rental service, with Netflix, I'm not locked to an Apple-branded device.

What I don't get is people seem to ignore that a TV at heart is a one-function device: it displays a picture. Apple's known for simplifying products, but anything you'd do to a TV would make it MUCH more complex.

Also, I really don't see what an Apple-branded TV could do that any other HDTV + current Apple TV wouldn't do. Integration isn't worth more than the $100 it costs to buy an Apple TV today. This rumor is silly and needs to die.

They do actually. But the NetFlix deal is sweet and hard to beat.
That "blows Netflix away" quote in the article is another giveaway that this rumor is probably made up. But I'm sure Apple will expand into this space further in some way.

It appears that Apple might use the TV for the output device for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch. Thus the ongoing rumor of increasing screen resolution of iPad 3 would make even more sense. With the iPhone/iPad/iPod (or something like the Microsoft Kinect or Playstation Move) as the controlling device, Apple can turn the HDTV into a big iPad, or a huge iPhone!

Apple is the only company with a chance to provide a TV product that can give your living room one simple remote control. Like when the remote originally came out, you had one per living room. I'd like that elegant simplicity again.

It may be a one function device for you, but most people here would laugh at the notion. You sound a bit like Steve Balmer commenting on the iPhone. In any case, in getting my ATV hooked up I spent almost as much on cables etc. as I did for the ATV (I got a refurbished ATV ($85) and had to do a little finagling to make full use of my surround sound system and DVD player) HDMI switch with remote, 4 optical cables, 4 HDMI cables, and an optical switch.
With 6 remotes, and 5 possible sources, my mother could never watch "simple TV" on her own at my house! Even I get confused.

They'll have two sizes, not three. They may even only have one size.

This TV will be a big deal for Apple, but it won't change the company. The iPad is no different.

iTV won't be $2,000. it will cost less.

That would be great but not what the article is saying.

Design flare? You don't mean to suggest Apple would leave the design to someone else, do you?

I'm a GB Packers fan. I've cut my cable and run Netflix/Hulu+ on PS3/Apple TV. I'll catch Breaking Bad and Mad Men on iTunes and probably watch my football games the way God intended - with my friends in a bar surrounded by good beer, good food, and pretty girls.

Forget about the article. I'm telling you with absolutly no proof that this TV won't start at $2,000. Just like with no proof I knew the first iPad would have a 10" screen. You'd be surprised what you can know if you use your head.

Like I mentioned a while back: Apple won't make a music player. Apple won't make a mobile phone. Apple won't make tablet computer. Apple won't make a TV. It's the same story every time.

The truth is not only does Apple want to make a kickass TV, they have no choice but to.

An All-in-one Apple TV with a power cord and 802.11n WiFi networking, amazing hardware design, great technology, iOS, AirPlay, Apps, iTunes and a living room with one simple remote and no need for anything else? Sign me up.

Don't think of it as selling a TV, think of it as selling a home entertainment centre.

Right now that consists of a TV, a DVD drive or B-Ray, a DVR, a cable box, maybe a games console, and a ton of cabling to join them all together. Apple would presumably present their solution as giving you a simpler experience, and maybe freedom from your cable company - because people really hate their cable companies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3i3bKMzGaU (relevant bit around 3:10)

It might be a nice idea if true, although it is a big 'if'. I certainly never doubt Apple's ability to reinvent something that has been around for a long time.

The internet connection is still via a cable company for most people, I just wonder what they are going to do if this happens. I am about to cancel land phone and TV from Verizon as we find iPhones, ATV 2 and NetFlix serve our needs these days. If this trend continues will Verizon et al start to raise prices on those that just want internet in any way they can.

Perhaps the "apps on AppleTV" holdout could be the hardball enticement to purchase an iTV. ATV and ATV2 will maintain functionality as is, with minor UI updates, whereas the Apple-branded iTV will offer apps on the big screen (among other awesomeness).

In other news... The new Bose TV looks mighty sickening!

This is why the concepts of net neutrality and the Internet provider as common carrier are so important. The US, where the internet was first created (I think) has the crappiest and most expensive internet service in the world (thanks to big business, telcos, and the cable companies.)

[This is why I also think, with the right technology, Apple will eventually get involved, in some way, in the ISP business. To keep folks honest, if nothing else.]

I totally agree.

The idea of Apple in the ISP business would be the biggest news ... is there any potential in that concept? I don't know much about what would be involved. How the heck would they get the signal to houses unless they had a right to use cable companies connections?

Again, agreed.

And, it will be HUGE. (I don't mean that screen-wise).

Why is there an assumption it's an it and not a them? If this happens maybe there would be a range of sizes and price points.

I hate to admit it but the 800lb gorilla for the battle of the living room right now is Xbox 360. It's a great gaming system, does movie rentals, tv shows, netflix, hulu (soon), can act as an IPTV setbox for select cable providers, music subscriptions, social gaming / networking, etc.

MS has sold about 40 to 50 million of these consoles plus the majority of users are Xbox Live paying customers. For Apple to be competitive in the living room it needs a solution that can compete with the Xbox 360 as a total entertainment solution. And right now it has nothing, and no ATV 2 does not come close.

Never the mind the fact that Xbox Live will become THE entertainment hub for W8 phones, tablets, pc's & xbox 360 when Windows 8 is released. That's a massive reach which will allow MS to compete with iTunes.

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple & use their products but I'm not naive to think an Apple-branded television will help them get a foothold in the living room let alone compete. If Apple can come out with a killer ATV version 3 that has at least 1080P graphics capabilities and allows it to connect with the iPad through Airplay then at the very least they have a solution that can compete with Nintendo's upcoming Wii U that was just announced.

Yes - if, or as you would say, when, this happens it will be a HUGE deal and for that reason they will have more than one size. Perhaps not three, but two.

But I do think this is different than the iPad. The iPad is not a media consumption device as everyone was proclaiming a very short time ago. It fits equally well in a pro setting as in a livingroom setting. Selling TV's along with pro gear is probably not a problem for TV buyers but I am not sure it sits well with pro editors and photographers to burchase their gear in a TV shop. I could be totally wrong of course, as the Apple TV will be a sight to behold and will be perfect to display video and other content on.

I meant the base model will be less than 2K.

I'm sure they'd be reluctant to step into this but they have a way of shaking things up. The last mile is indeed the big problem and it's highly protected by entrenched interests. Data can move all the way across the country on cheap fiber optic, but getting it that last mile to you is the bottleneck. That's why I say "with the right technology." I keep thinking Apple must be looking for patents that will allow them to disrupt this cable and telco logjam maybe some innovation in a combination of wireless and optical that will disrupt things. Or maybe they might just finance a player that's willing to deliver the kind of cheap fast service that's the norm in Japan? I don't know, but I think Steve must be thinking about it.
We've paid so much in the US for our internet infrastructure and received so little from the telcos.

This thread was going to be hollow without Ireland chiding us for our lack of faith!

It's a big player, but very unappealing, for very many reasons, to very many people.

So, what, you were left with a really crappy sound system? I'm assuming by stereo, you'd mean receiver. If you replaced that with an AppleTV, you're getting sound from where? The TV? That must make for a great aural experience.

The current AppleTV or an actual Apple TV couldn't replace even a Home Theater in a Box when it comes to audio. And that's half the experience.

Apple isn't building another flat screen / HD / 3D etc with nothing to offer other than what Apple TV already does + screen. That does NOT sound like the "go to" market strategy Apple has been looking for.

Has apple built prototypes of a television? probably, but it's not going to market.

Step 1.
The go to market strategy starts with licensing. (sports channels, premium channels ie cinemax, showtime, other networks etc.) a very similar model that current cable providers have in place but they do so through hard lines (coaxial, fiber & set top boxes) .

Step 2.
revenue stream. the sale of each little black Apple TV as a hardware component is NOT Apple's cash cow. It's in the monthly service Apple will collect and split with content providers.

Step 3.
hardware. Can Apple accomplish this by selling a 50" Apple branded screen? yes. But they can also accomplish the same thing with a little black Apple TV with an HDMI cable. So why would Apple expect consumers to abandon their current flat screens and do so knowing that the TV market changes so quickly, that the 50" Apple branded screen will be outdated by a new type of 3D TV every few months?

All Apple has to do is continue to offer the current set top box "Apple TV" with a version of iOS that is capable of handling the massive amounts of streaming live content. Let the consumer pick whatever size screens they want (sony, samsung, mits, etc) and offer a compelling alternative to watching TV that is not their local cable provider.

Just run the optical out to your home theater system.
Did you expect any TV to replace a home theater system? If so, why?