or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple expected to launch 3 HDTV models by March 2012 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple expected to launch 3 HDTV models by March 2012 - report - Page 3

post #81 of 140
It doesn't make sense for Apple to go into the TV business. Sony is bleeding money like crazy with their TV division. Apple might be able to make more money than Sony, but it sure does seem risky to me. I wouldn't mind having a 27" iMac with HDTV capabilities but even a low end model that size would probably cost close to $2000. One can buy a pretty decent 1080P HDTV from LG, Vizio or Samsung for under $1000. I honestly don't see Apple going into this field. I could understand Apple building a high-end set-top box, but integrating it into a TV doesn't seem like a good idea at all. I keep my TVs for at least 5 years so I can't see paying a lot of money for an Apple TV and then having the internet programming part of the TV be out of date in just a couple of years. I think Apple should stay away from HDTVs unless their economies of scale can make the business profitable. I want to see Apple build a firmware upgradeable, iOS running set-top box with PVR capabilities but I don't see that happening either.
post #82 of 140
I'm skeptical, but if true, it would be good timing for me.
post #83 of 140
People said the same thing when Apple entered the phone market. It is also worth noting the PC market as a whole is on a race to the bottom. Dell and HP are killing each other cutting margins and lowering cost. Apple meanwhile is maintaining healthy margins and growing share.


I have little faith in this rumor. However, I think Apple will enter the market. Companies like Samsung are very aggressively building Smart TV's with built in access to applications. This could effect Apple's other markets eventually. I don't expect Apple to take a wait and see approach.

Apple would likely launch such a TV the same way it did the Apple TV. It will come preloaded with a select few applications it and third party developers put together quietly.

Further, I honestly don't see an Apple HDTV reaching the price points the Bose TV reaches. You can buy a nice 42 inch Sharp LED HDTV on sale for under $700.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

This rumor makes no sense to me at all. Why would Apple want to involve itself in an industry that is in a perpetual race to the bottom with little no profit margin. I fail to see how this would benefit the Apple ecosystem. It is only slightly more relevant than an "iBlender."
post #84 of 140
I'll be in the market for a new HDTV next year... and would definitely consider getting one from Apple.

HOWEVER: It MUST support 3D (yes... I really do want it, for a number of reasons).... and it is hard for me to believe that Apple will do that.

If Apple comes out with a 3D fHDTV... I will buy it. Period.
post #85 of 140
If you have ever been in the back of an Apple Retail Store you would instantly know that Apple will not be selling giant TVs any time soon.
There is a reason Apple has been trying to make smaller devices and smaller packaging.
There is a reason they are getting rid of software packaging.
There's no where to stock it!

Apple will get into the video game console business in the near future.
Apple's App Store model is a natural fit for the AppleTV set top box.
Apple can afford to ship and stock consoles not TVs.
post #86 of 140
If Apple were to announce a new AppleTV that supported apps, the logical place/time would be at the WWDC.
post #87 of 140
I think a big part of the reason we haven't seen the App Store on Apple TV yet is because Apple has been busy with Lion and iOS5.

Lion has finally shipped and iOS 5 will ship in the fall.
Once those projects are out the door, Apple will be able to divert resources to update AppleTV.
So I think next spring/summer is a very real possibility.
post #88 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

People said the same thing when Apple entered the phone market.

That was not the consensus. Prior to the iPhone's unveiling there were a plethora of mockups and a clear argument as to why Apple should move the iPod into a phone as the phone market was a clear future and the PMP market had neared it's apex. The big surprise that day in January 2007 wasn't that Apple made the iPhone but what they did to make the iPhone.
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 #89 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I don't think it will be based on pixel density. Having apple TV built in would mean airplay and air gaming right out of the box. If it let you do hulu and netflix, rent from iTunes and watch regular TV it would be really awesome.


That would be the only good thing this tv will be able to do. As is other televisions do much of the same things as that. The only thing they will be offering new is itunes and airplay. Are you willing to pay that much for itunes and airplay. I myself use a dumb hdtv and I have my ps3 connected to it and I stream music and movies over my home network system. Plus I get better game play then an airplay enabled apple tv.
post #90 of 140
Sony is bleeding because it is a horribly run company. The quality of its sets aren't what they used to be. You can buy a good Sony set, but you have to pay a lot for the decent ones Sony makes. The low end ones are junk. Like Sony, Samsung is overrated as well. Both Sony and Samsung generally don't make their own panels unless it is a high end model. Within the same model TV, both companies outsource from various companies resulting in varying degrees of quality.

Go into a store that carries Sharp, Samsung and Sony (like Sears). Sharp makes its own panels, and adds a fourth color to the pixel mix. Many Sharp's lower end LED TVs use full array back lighting, as opposed to the less quality edge lightening method used by Samsung and Sony on the same priced TVs. The Sharp picture stands out.

I also disagree with you about Apple going into the field. If it can offer a decent product at a comparative cost, Apple will sell the sets. It has hundreds of stores to show case the product. Further, Apple is all about leveraging technology it already has to enter new markets. It would cost Apple very little in terms of research to offer a decent product. An Apple HDTV could essentially be an enlarged iPad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

It doesn't make sense for Apple to go into the TV business. Sony is bleeding money like crazy with their TV division. Apple might be able to make more money than Sony, but it sure does seem risky to me. I wouldn't mind having a 27" iMac with HDTV capabilities but even a low end model that size would probably cost close to $2000. One can buy a pretty decent 1080P HDTV from LG, Vizio or Samsung for under $1000. I honestly don't see Apple going into this field. I could understand Apple building a high-end set-top box, but integrating it into a TV doesn't seem like a good idea at all. I keep my TVs for at least 5 years so I can't see paying a lot of money for an Apple TV and then having the internet programming part of the TV be out of date in just a couple of years. I think Apple should stay away from HDTVs unless their economies of scale can make the business profitable. I want to see Apple build a firmware upgradeable, iOS running set-top box with PVR capabilities but I don't see that happening either.
post #91 of 140
One more thing...As far as Apple is concerned the iPad is the replacement for the TV.
In time most of us will use our iPads more and our TVs less.
The big screen will be primarily for when we want to share something from the ipad with others.
The iPad is the primary interface of the AppleTV.
post #92 of 140
If they are basing the models exactly like that pictured Bose system, I'm going to throw up. That's not designed, not been engineered. Mind, I never like how Bose or Leowe TVs look. Plain ugly, they are...


I'm skeptical too if I may add. The price will be astronomical rendering them niche and if tied to iTunes, they are going to defy one of the purpose of iTunes which is to attract general consumers and not only for the riches.
post #93 of 140
Why would Apple design their own video DSP chip? Even with tech from PS Semi it doesn't make sense. There are numerous companies that make really good video DSP chips and are way ahead of where Apple would be. Marvel has Qdeo second gen chips out and they are excellent. Silicon Image also has been in this business for a long time and have very sophisticated chips. Why would Apple reinvent the wheel here when there would be so little market share for them to capture?

I call BS on Apple video DSP chips.
post #94 of 140
As long as it's not glossy it'll be great.
Big, reflective TV's are very annoying.
post #95 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

What Apple should do is:

Updated Apple TV
Features 2 HDMI ports, 1 in, 1 out
Powered by the A6 chip
Hook it up between your existing cable/sat box and the Apple TV interface pops up over your TV stations.
Provides apps which can float over your normal TV image or replace it
Takes over when you play videos etc

Makes any tv a 'smart' tv

That is exactly what GoogleTV does. Consumers were not impressed.
post #96 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

As long as it's not glossy it'll be great.
Big, reflective TV's are very annoying.

Yes, thank you!

Not sure if I buy this rumor or not, but if you think a 15" MacMirror is bad, imagine how nasty a glossy 46" reflecto-TV would be!
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #97 of 140
I just don't see it happening, an Apple HDTV.

because iOS screen mirroring via ATV already does the job anyway. whatever you can display on your iPad, then boom, it's on your big screen. doesn't matter what brand. any kind of app, and thus any/every kind of content. from any source. the big step is doing this wirelessly in iOS 5, which makes it far more convenient.

sure, apps designed to take advantage of 16:9 screens are important, and certainly most media apps will be updated for that. a few already do, so we know it is totally possible.

so I think iOS 5 screen mirroring IS the "killer app." the future of television isn't jamming all the hardware into one big screen gadget, it's bring a whole new realm of content to that screen, with a new kind of UI that makes it far easier.

so the ATV UI and its Remote app do need to be totally reinvented. get rid of the candy bar remote and primitive, clumsy on-screen LRUD cursor UI totally (it was invented about 30 years ago!), and replace it with a pure iOS style touch interface you hold in your hand. yes you will need to use an iGizmo, big deal. I bet this will be the big change for ATV 3. I would add the HDMI pass thru too, as some suggest here. then you will see the ATV start screen first when you turn on your HDTV, whatever you want to do next from there (TiVo and CableCo apps already let you select channels etc). a few widget apps built into the ATV itself would be nice for that start screen.
post #98 of 140
Apple is not going to get into the television business and you only have to ask yourself one question to know that it's not going to happen. "How often do people replace their television sets?" The average time used to be 9 years, recently is has dropped to 6 years, but that can be mostly attributed to the recent switch to the digital television standard. I actually expect that the replacement cycle will remain steady or go back up. Apple is NOT getting into a business with a 6 year or better replacement cycle. It would make just as much sense to speculate on them getting into the washer and dryer business or the refrigerator business.
post #99 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post


I wish AppleInsider would ban the publishing of unfounded rumors like this one.

You really wish a rumor site would stop publishing rumors?
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #100 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekkieruss View Post

Apple is NOT getting into a business with a 6 year or better replacement cycle. It would make just as much sense to speculate on them getting into the washer and dryer business or the refrigerator business.

Try not to give the analysts any more ideas...
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #101 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post

You really wish a rumor site would stop publishing rumors?

You know exactly what he's talking about. Don't play dumb. AppleInsider should be posting rumors based on sense or proof. Not this abject nonsense.
post #102 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedmud View Post

I'll be in the market for a new HDTV next year... and would definitely consider getting one from Apple.

HOWEVER: It MUST support 3D (yes... I really do want it, for a number of reasons).... and it is hard for me to believe that Apple will do that.

If Apple comes out with a 3D fHDTV... I will buy it. Period.

Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.

I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #103 of 140
Apple already makes an all-in-one with a monitor and a content delivery arrangement built in. It's called the iMac and it comes in two sizes, namely 21.5" and 27". The smaller set retails for $1,199 and the larger for $1,699.

So bring out a 40" iMac, retail it for $2,699, and $2,999. Voila an Apple-branded TV, even three of them if you consider the other iMac models as lesser versions of the new top-of-the-line models.

If convergence has happened, more or less, why not kill two birds with that proverbial one stone by simply making your all-in-one computer, in at least one version, large enough to serve as your main TV in the family room. I recently bought a new Mac Mini and decided to attach the old Mini to my main set. Really it's handy having it set up there in part because I didn't have a device attached that would have allowed me to access my Netflix account and now I do.

For a 40" set that includes a capable computer and good sound, one could make a case for something approaching $3,000, especially considering that one would be buying a TV and a computer that would cost something like that bought individually. But otherwise, this is some sort of joke. The days of $5,000 TVs are long gone. Even the sub-$1,000 sets now serve up terrific pictures when fed a decent signal through HDMI. The average consumer accustomed to bad signals is just not that picky.

So basically what I could see is Apple introducing a 40" iMac. Imagine the reflections you could get off that glossy screen.
post #104 of 140
Let's see....

Apple Thunderbolt 27" display will be reduced to $899. Apple TV is $99.

Total $998.

or new Thunderbolt 37" display for $1399. Mac Mini is $599.

Total $1998.

or new Thunderbolt 55" display for $2399. Mac Mini is $599.

Total $2998.

Sorry, no bluray, it's a bag of hurt ;-)

Seems logical for Apple pricing.
post #105 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by efithian@mac.com View Post

Sorry, no bluray, it's a bag of hurt ;-)

Why would there be Blu-ray in a (nonexistent) television, anyway?
post #106 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

That is exactly what GoogleTV does. Consumers were not impressed.

yeah, but google can't do anything right.
post #107 of 140
Whether this rumor is true or not, I am not sure how successful Apple can be in the TV arena with their current technology approach. TVs are something most people buy every 5 - 10 years, as opposed to every 2 - 5 years that most people replace phones, computers and iPods.

Given that Apple incrementally improve their products regularly and rapidly, I'd be very reluctant to buy something from them that I'd expect to last 7 or 8 years, especially a first generation product. Apple won't be able to pull their usual trick of withholding some obvious features for the next generation if they want people to buy their TVs.

I have a rapidly aging 1080i CRT still dominating the living room, so am due for an upgrade - but will probably stick to a Mac Mini/Generic TV combination for now. I'd rather have to upgrade my Mini or an Apple TV (@ $99) in two years than a $5,000 TV.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #108 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

yeah, but google can't do anything right.

Oh, come now. They have search and advertisements absolutely correct.
post #109 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, come now. They have search and advertisements absolutely correct.

And that Calder Google Doodle last week was perfection.
post #110 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

yeah, but google can't do anything right.

And you were suggesting that Apple does exactly the same thing. Just copying Google is not the answer.

What Apple really needs to do is provide a better solution for input. It doesn't matter if AppleTV is a separate $99 box or built into an HDTV we need a better method of controlling smart TVs. Not a full qwerty keyboard as Google tried. Not an Apple remote with its minimal number of buttons. And not a $500 iPad. We need something new and something better suited for the task. It needs to be simple to use but still able to control complex apps. Hopefully Apple can find an answer.
post #111 of 140
If Apple builds an HDTV I bet it will have FaceTime.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #112 of 140
Not really sold on HDTV's with built in stuff like this. Looking at the Apple TV, the first generation one no longer gets software updates. What happens when the media player part of the TV is outdated, do we toss the whole set and buy a new one? That, vs just replacing the media player and keeping your standard HDTV.

And if it gets Apple's usual port-hatred, sign me out. On a laptop I can live with it, on a TV absolutely not.
post #113 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucasland View Post

Signed up on your site

Just wanted to give you some inside info about these tv's

They will offer a new IPTV service from Apple. This is what their new data and upcoming data farms are really for.

Apple will make it so easy to watch tv now and in the future.

Buy, unbox, plug into outlet, plug into ethernet and turn on. No more set top boxes!

When you turn on tv, Apple will offer you a new tv experience you will be able to subscribe too. All your favorite channels, on demand movies, live sports and great apps that you can select on a sidebar or overlay live picture.

It will be a game changer in the tv industry.

OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product with a big screen, and since the current $99 AppleTV box runs a version of iOS, a subset of Mac OS X, won't the (hypothetical) Apple TV be a big-screen iMac without a DVD drive? Maybe without a hard drive but with a small SSD? Less RAM and the lower OS?

The lowest-spec 27-inch iMac costs $1,200. Dropping the DVD and HD and OS might bring this down to $1,000. You can get a Samsung 27-inch HDTV for $350. So Apple's higher-resolution screen etc. adds a $650 mark-up.

Samsung sells a 40-inch HDTV for around $1,000, a 46-inch HDTV for around $1,200 and a 46-inch "Smart TV". for $2,800. So Samsung adds a $2,450 mark-up for 46 inches and "smart" over a 27-inch HDTV.

Could Apple sell, and would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?
post #114 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

And that Calder Google Doodle last week was perfection.

Their doodles are epic. They should abandon smartphones and focus on doodles
post #115 of 140
Those "16 speakers" things on the Bose box are going to be awful crap. You simply can't get good sound (and "surround" at that) with 16 1" speakers stuffed in one box.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #116 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tardis View Post

OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product ..... would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?

Just one more thing: FWIW, this iMac 27-inch is currently my living room TV. Our local analogue TV broadcasts went off the air some time ago, and I am using this iMac with a USB plug-in TV tuner to receive digital TV.

I am waiting until the queues die down before I get a big HDTV. Does anyone think I should wait until Apple introduces a big HDTV?

If so, how long should I wait?
post #117 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

yeah, but google can't do anything right.

Google TV is focused on "Search" as its key New Idea (when your favorite tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). but few consumers want to do Search on a big screen TV. they want mainly to passively consume. with as little effort as possible. e.g., does anyone use all that interactive web stuff on BluRay movies? very few.

on top of that, Google failed to reinvent the UI. still the old school LRUD cursor screen. that has to go. it always sucks.

and then Google made it all too complicated, a half baked miss mash as usual. so ... three strikes, and DOA.

giving Google TV an HDMI pass thru was one of its good ideas. maybe the only one ... oh yeah, widgets too.
post #118 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.

I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.

My sincere sympathy for your underlying point here. Like my brother, my niece, and a good friend or two, your eyes are apparently not tracking or both seeing well enough in parallel for stereo vision. Sometimes this is correctable to great benefit -- e.g., Sue Barry's Fixing My Gaze -- sometimes not. You are right to bring this up. It was my oversight not to include it when I anticipated that there will be objections about 3D TV.

But 3D televisions can also be used in 2D with no loss in image quality. So the solution is to switch off the 3D when someone present is "stereo challenged." Or for the 2Ders to have their own screen nearby so as not to be excluded.

The consensus of the figures I've seen is that about 10 percent can't do stereo. I haven't seen figures on how many out that group could be helped by corrective lenses and vision training, but the advent of 3D movies and televisions should be welcomed for helping to diagnose vision problems and to provide practice goals for those who are improving.

And then again there are the benefits of non-stereo vision. Margaret Livingstone's work on Rembrandt and other artists suggests that the single-eye view of the world is more attuned to depth cues like lighting and perspective, a great aid in painting. I know a film photographer who swears by the usefulness of double vision. He doesn't have to close one eye, but he can both see through the viewfinder and see where he's going when doing handheld work.
post #119 of 140
This article and most of the comments that follow it are shallow and lack vision.

1. Features like screen sizes, resolution, speakers and 3D are not game changers, nor are they proprietary. There's no reason for Apple to jump into an already-crowded pond of products with generic physical features.

2. AAPL shareholders expect that any new products will enhance or defend the company's gross margins in the mid to long term. Margins for today's TV makers are nonexistent or pitiful by comparison. It will take a true game changer for consumers to decide that the value of a TV from Apple is worth the extra money.

3. E pluribus unum. Right now we have a chaotic spectrum of content ownership and delivery - cable and satellite on demand, Netflix, Hulu,etc. - as well as a plethora of add-on boxes - cable boxes, Apple TVs, WiFi connected Blu-Ray players, smart TVs, Xboxes and Wiis. The obvious gaping hole is a single device that can gather all this content under a single control scheme. But can Apple or any other entity bring off agreements with content controllers to bring order out of chaos? Doubtful. And even if Apple could, how long would it have a proprietary edge over other television set manufacturers?

Not saying it will never happen, but these are the hurdles to be crossed before Apple gets into the TV business.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #120 of 140
Apple will produce three TVs. The sizes will be 45", 32", and 27". They will be announced in the first week of September 2011.

How do I know? I just gave it some thought and looked into my crystal ball.

I don't care if I'm wrong. I don't watch TV on a TV set. I watch everything from my 23" 1920 X 1080 resolution Dell monitor and my computer connected to the internet. My screen is plenty big for me and it only uses 33 watts of power. The computer uses 85 watts at its maximum output.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple expected to launch 3 HDTV models by March 2012 - report