iCloud seen as further evidence of Apple television coming late 2012 - Page 2

Apple could differentiate themselves in the TV market by making the TV the actual digital hub for the home. They could include some iOS based home server as well as the AirPort Extreme and Apple TV into the set. I do agree that redesigning the remote is the key to making it work, however, I still don't see how they are going to integrate with the cable box.

Do they sell Lazy-boy and Cheetos anywhere else?

Well, Canada, for one.

I'm sorry to hear that. What are you going to tell me next..that you have graffiti and thugs with their pants half way down their asses too?

I'll start by saying, I don't think Apple will make an HDTV. I know they could make a great product, but it would likely be too expensive for me, and even if it was not, I can't justify a new HDTV set when mine is only a couple of years old.

With that said, if Apple were to do this, the benefit to users would be that it has the potential to have the iOS interface in the first layer, so that when the TV is on, this is how you interact with the TV to give commands and access features. Currently the ATV is on a different input, so you have to switch over. It's not extremely difficult of course, but it is not nearly as seamless as it could be. Also, an all-in-one solution (a la giant iMac) with a built in iSight cam for FaceTime on the bigscreen would be a huge seller for families everywhere.

I wouldn't be opposed to something along the lines of "Made for iCloud" whereby internet TV manufacturers can be licensed to stream our digital library without the need for another top box.

But I've no idea if this is even feasible or if people want it!

Holding it up to take pictures with the rear facing camera will be tough

Looking at the care Apple has given this particular logo (read: golden ratio) and what I believe Apple wants the iCloud to be I think that makes a lot of sense.

I can see this in the corner of a TV's frame at big box stores.

Maybe because he said 'Cheetos' and not 'crisps'?????

It's coming, folks. And it's going to be a barn-burner.

Munster is right on this one. It could even -- depending on Jobs's health -- be later this year.

And, it'll be great to come back to threads like this in 2014!

Yes, it will. However, we won't bother, there'll be new debates, new arguments and new trolls to slay (with kindness).

... yes

MUNSTERVISION:


The dreaded "Wall Street Analysts" strike again!!!!


Nice work if you can get it: a "Wall Street Analyst" is someone who gets paid BIG BUCKS to churn out bullshit tales by punters stupid enough to believe them.

Among them, Gene Munster's USP is the "Apple TV". NOT the "Apple TV" that Apple sells, and which since the price was dropped to 99 smackers is selling in huge numbers. NO, the Munster believes that Apple will start selling real TV's. In fact, he has been predicting this since 2008, and even though none of these predictions ever come true, people still keep paying him to predict the Apple TV "really soon".

These hucksters work like most, relying on the fact that most people don't remember what they heard before and don't bother checking facts when someone tells them what they want to hear. They also reinforce each other. So, with no real evidence at all, Gene Munster will say "Apple is expected to introduce an Apple HD Television at Macworld 2011". Then someone like Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty chimes in with a report that "analysts are reporting that Apple is expected to introduce an Apple HD Television at Macworld 2011". Then an unknown blogger desperate for hit counts puts the two together with a blog that says "analysts are expecting Apple to introduce an Apple HD Television at Macworld 2011". Then Gene issues another prediction, quoting Katy and desperate blogger .............

So then Macworld 2011 comes around, and guess what, no Apple TV. Well, of course there is the $99 one that Apple sells in huge numbers, just not the one that needs to walk out of an Apple Store on the back of a large truck. Everyone forgets that Gene Munster said the same thing in 2008 and it wasn't true, Gene Munster said the same thing in 2009 and it wasn't true, Gene Munster said the same thing in 2010 and it wasn't true and now Gene Munster said the same thing in 2011 and it wasn't true, allowing the same Gene Munster to say the same thing in 2012 and tech journos and bloggers will still expect it to be true,

...

Anyone who has bought a wide-arse TV recently knows the following:

- they come in different sizes. Even if you discount below 1080p, there are 32, 40, 46 and 55 - inchers at affordable prices

- they come in different models. Even though the differences may be marginal, there is always a "Good, Better, Best" range of options. For each size, Best is often twice the price of Good

- they come come out with different features at least every year. However, no-one buys a new tellie every year. Unlike PC's, people don't even buy a new tellie every three years, it's more like 5 to 10

- the price changes. After a few months, you can buy the same model for two thirds of list price. A year later they are half price

- they come with different technical specs for different parts of the world

...


So, even if Apple was prepared to develop dozens of new models every year, and face cut-throat competition from other TV makers, this scenario ignores the most obvious thing that Apple could do to sell EVEN MORE $99 Apple TV modules:

Oh wait, the Munstervision also ignores the fact that in between Munster starting on his quest, when the Apple TV was a big expensive HDTV add-on, and now, Steve Jobs was seen discussing the difficulties for Apple of getting involved in the TV business. People not willing to pay a little bit more for a higher quality product was one factor mentioned. Then after that the new Apple TV became a compact, inexpensive HDTV add-on ...........

Somehow, I think that when Apple introduced the compact, inexpensive Apple TV, Jobs may have been *just hoping* it would solve some of the difficulties he had been talking about ...........

....

So, where was I? Oh yes, the most obvious thing that Apple could do to sell EVEN MORE $99 Apple TV modules:

at heart, the Apple TV is a tiny computer running the same Unix-based OS as the iPhone or the iPad. It does not have any storage beyond a small flash chip, cannot make phone calls and it's not mobile, but it has two VERY BIG advantages: 1. it is connected to the internet and 2. it is connected to a big-arse TV. We know that Apple has been having LULZ with connections between the iPhone, the iPad and your big-arse TV via the AppleTV, but so far the AppleTV has been just a dumb junction box ..........

however, the Apple TV is still a computer running the same OS as the iPhone or the iPad. It could also run the same Apps, if Apple let it. How so, with no storage?

Well, perhaps it could make use of a thing called iCloud .........

...

Now if Gene Munster somehow had a clue, then what Apple has been building over the past few years in North Carolina would have been a television factory. Even Gene should now be aware that it's not a television factory, it's a data centre. A BIG ONE. Gene may also have heard that Apple has been investing in big buildings in Japan. Television factories? well, maybe, but we already have television factories here and in Korea ...........

Now I am not an overpaid "Wall Street Analyst" like Gene, nor the genius and/or evil mastermind behind Apple like Steve Jobs, but I would hazard a guess that if the AppleTV could be coaxed into running iPhone Apps on your TV, while allowing your iPhone or iPad to get involved in the action, many more people would see the value in buying a $99 Apple TV module (while you're spending a grand or so buying the TV) and then buying $1 - $10 games rather than, say a $300 games console and $10 - $20 games. I would also guess that if this becomes possible, the iCloud may be there to make up for the lack of storage on the AppleTV ............



Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this. Rather than the AppleTV allowing Apple to enter and dominate computer gaming, it could be that Apple's plans are for the AppleTV allowing Apple to enter and dominate the online video and TV download and rental market .....................


Surely not both ??????

For those that don't really understand the golden ratio,

Golden Ratio for Humans

Why not just an aTV with HDMI inputs? Most newer equipment can be controlled through the HDMI cable, thus allowing your iphone/ipod/ipad to become your one and only remote.

• A large Apple TV with logo is a great way for Apple to make their presence in the living room known. If they go in with a big push a TV is the way to show it off.
• Perfect iCloud / iPad or iPhone / iTunes integration
• Great user interface

But - no mater how clever the hardware, content is King and Apple needs to find a way to work with the content providers. If Apple could find a way for cable co's to be comfortably presented through the Apple gui / epg without loosing face or without feeling threatened (like Netflix on ATV) then this could be HUGE.

An Apple TV will not be about the hardware on its own, it will be about the Apple eco-system and about controlling the living room.

It seems much more likely to me that Apple will:

1) work with the TV manufacturers to include AirPlay support in their TVs
2) Create an "Apple TV" app for the iPhone/iPad, or make sure that all of the equivalent functionality of the Apple TV is available within the existing apps - along with AirPlay support. For example they might add the ability to "rent" a movie from the iTunes app and push it to an AirPlay device.

And if you have a TV without AirPlay support, you buy the $99 Apple TV and you're set.

I want real buttons. I don't think having to look at your remote and hold it with one hand while swiping with the other is as convenient as a tactile interface.

lmao!!!!!!

I wish my boss let me make random associations between data without any supporting facts or evidence.

Without saying if there is or isn't going to be an Apple HDTV, there is absolutely nothing in the iCloud or the DVR patents to support such a claim. Currently, iCloud doesn't do streaming, so it doesn't even support AppleTV right now. The DVR interface technology could simply be integrated into AppleTV or added as a remote control app to the iPhone or iPad.

As a previous poster also noted, I make my TV purchases based nearly entirely on picture quality. And I expect a TV to have a much longer useful life than a computer or mobile device. Given the rapid change of technology, I wouldn't pay any sort of premium for a TV that was tied to a single service. Buying a $150 iPod that tied to Apple's paid content is one thing. Buying a $1000+ TV that's tied to work with only the iCloud, that's a whole other (unappealing) story. (Granted, the AppleTV does have access to a few other sources, including Netflix, but there's a reason I use a mini instead of AppleTV. )

I think they'll (Apple) get into the TV business with a "whole' Apple TV, not just a set top box.
Running iOS and having iCloud and the interface with your iPhone and iPad seems a natural evolution to me. Imagine the possibilities.....

Honestly, I don't see the use of an Apple branded HDTV. Apple TV provides everything such a product would offer and for only $100.

The much more exciting thing is iCloud for the video content you buy and rent from iTunes. That would be HUGE. Even bigger than iCloud for music. If video were supported, you would no longer have to worry about getting one insanely large hard drive to store your video content and another to back it up (and even a third if you're really being careful). I see no reason why users have to fret and deal with backing this content up when it's living there live on Apples serves at all times.

Buy a TV series from iTunes. Download and watch it all then delete it from your HD. In a year or so when you want to re-watch that cool show, you can just re-download it from iTunes for free (you've already paid a year ago) and delete it again when you are through. No user storage required. I can't wait for this day!

Doesn't this also describe the mobile phone market? Apple was able to get people to spring for phones without subsidies from AT&T. People still bought them. They eventually had to bow down to subsidizing to gain market penetration (not as much as the buy 1 get 1 free of android phone manufactures). This is not the old Apple this is the most profitable consumer electronics company in the world, Apple. If they want to dominate or create a market they do it, and still make hand over fist money.

Personally, I wish they would develop a Tivo device that take the place of the DVR and sling box. But it would probably be a licensing nightmare.

There's an iPad app for that, at least for the ATV. There are universal remote apps but they require, IMHO, overpriced hardware to transmit the IR. Some new TVs, Samsung for example support bluetooth and or WiFi enabled so IR remotes may be on there way out. Even so the iPad, or more likely a cheap Android tablet, with a $5 adapter is probably going to replace the current crop of universal remotes.

I turned on my TV at 20 past 12 and it was an Apple commercial. Another clue?

Is there a point to the link?

No. They aren't. For heaven's sake, they aren't.


Ad spam.

Thank you for painting such a realistic picture of what you look like as you lounge in your man cave.

The TV intelligently stretches its panel between 16:9, 4:3, and 3:2 to meet whatever requirements it needs.

I still don't believe this. Compared to smartphone's volume, TV's volume is very low. Several people share one TV and you'll have replaced your smartphone several times before you get a new TV.

iPods & iPhones aren't 4:3, so integration with widescreen won't be a problem

So do moblie phones, from the smallest of flips to the big smart-bricks of yesteryear.


So do mobile phones.


I think the average handset maker spits out a new model every month on average. Purchase cycles are 18-24 months.


Same with phones again.


That sounds an awful lot like the way phones do!


Like the way they do in handsets?

Every single reason why Apple won't just 'walk in' to TVs and be a success could have been given for why they couldn't walk in to phones. Now there is a good reason why TVs are different, and that's because user satisfaction with their TVs is probably on average higher than their satisfaction with their phones.

I have a 40inch Samsung 1080p screen. It's ok, though about 5% of the screen lies beyond the visible margins due to the way they enclosed it. Oh and the curved plastic enclosure has annoying reflections. Oh and the remote is kinda ugly. Oh and the menus are kinda nasty. But apart from all that it's a decent device and I dislike it far less than I disliked my last Nokia handset - and my last Nokia was an 8800 - not some plastic crap.

Of course it also has a ton of features that I never use because of the aforementioned ugly menus and nasty remote. If Apple offered me a smart-TV with an interface I might actually like, then I'd seriously consider it. Heck if MS did a smart TV with those neat looking live-tiles I might actually consider it in preference to this samsung device.

Why not just sell a lot of Apple TVs?

Because most consumers don't know that they want one. It's just a white box, and it doesn't ignite gadget-lust the way a big shiny screen can. That's why apple TV will never rise beyond the hobbyist market.

It's for people looking for a new TV.

-

Steve looks to "where the puck will be", or something like that.

TV's will all be internet connected running sophisticated software and Apps. More and more people will be "cutting the cord" - Cable TV and Dish, etc. and getting their favorite content on demand, any time, anywhere.

If Apple only has an add-on device, and a consumer buys a new TV with GoogleTV built-in, why should they spend more on aTV add-on?

Apple likes to control the software, hardware - and now, the content - iTunes - iCloud.

If they don't make their own TV, they'll lose out.

No market for TVs. No Apple brand TVs, just like there are no Apple tennis shoes, though Nike does add iPod connectivity.

I just don't understand why everyone doesn't see the possibilities of an Apple Television with iOS and airplay. Imagine, all the games that can be designed for the TV. The iPad will be a controller. Think of all the multiplayer games where each person has an iPad.

They could do a bundle pack with an AppleTV + iPod touch for $299.

But they do make their own hardware. The AppleTV is hardware.

The TV is just a display.

But you could do all that with an external $99 AppleTV if Apple wanted to do that. I wouldn't pay extra to have it integrated.

Other than volume or a few select keys, do you have all of the near-hundreds of keys on remote memorized? I'd say most have to look.

For basic functions, a touchscreen remote could be quite intuitive:

Volume: Swipe Up or Down

Channel Change: Swipe Left or Right

On-screen Guide/Menu: Double tap (or you could have the guide appear right on the remote's display)


Most other controls could be an accessible menu on the remote display. Why cover screen real estate when you have a screen right on the remote?