Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report - Page 4

I honestly didn't think this was likely but who knows.

I like the look of the Samsung Smart TV, but I would much rather have an Apple version.

Wow this might actually happen!

I'm not completely sold on whether or not Apple will make an HDTv (even though its executives did warn that a future product would be coming up that would lower its profit margins slightly). The only thing is that much of your concerns have viable solutions.
1) you mention that some people thought that the mobile space was saturated (which was not the case) but television is definitely saturated. If you look solely at the general tv market, I'd agree, but if you look at web-enabled televisions, that is not the case. No manufacturer has created one that has fully captured the market for average consumers so there is room for growth there.
2) logistics of selling them in the store. I mentioned in the other thread about the SJ bio that Apple can have off site warehouses and have the TV's delivered once purchased in the store. A bit more expense, but the television isn't selling for a couple hundred dollars. Also, nobody looks forward to lugging a huge tv home in a sedan
3) bypassing cable/satellite. Who says that Apple needs to do that? It will still be a tv just with extra stuff. You can still pay the cable companies if you want but have the choice to use Netflix, iTunes, YouTube, whatever else is added. If Apple goes beyond a set top box, it can't straight up eliminate other content providers. Apple makes its mint from hardware not content.

For that to work I'd think Apple would have to sell their TVs to any distributors just like Samsung. While I'm sure the Apple SmartTV would be more responsive and user friendly than a Samsung SmartTV it still leaves the constant problem of grabbing the right remote since it's still not a replacement for cable or sat.

Something is definitely missing from this puzzle. Without that piece I don't think anything in the article could be the "cracked" solution of Jobs eureka moment.

I love all things Apple and have many Apple devices in my home, but I also love movies and have a nice collection of Blu-ray titles. If the Apple TV wouldn't support Blu-ray, either an internal drive (ideal) or thru HDMI, I wouldn't buy it, no matter how badly I would want it. \

I'm sure a TV by Apple would support Blu-ray through HDMI.

A built in Face Time camera is the only benefit I can see from an Apple Produced Television.
Every thing else can be put into the AppleTV

That is why I don't think we will ever see an Television from Apple.

If Apple could sell a 4K TV for the price of a regular HDTV and use the A6 processor to upscale the HDTV signal to to 4K resolution, then that would be a product that would dominate. Sadly I don't think it is possible both economically and computationally.

Good point about FaceTime, but Apple could still license their "AppleTV Inside", "iCloud Inside" TV to other vendors that are required to have a camera in the top center of the bezel.

PS: One thing about a FaceTime camera is that it's on devices that you typically place on your face, with a mic that's also not too far from your face. With a large HDTV you end up getting a wide view of a room and a mic that's far away unless it's in the remote control or some other device close to your person. I suppose they could put in a zoom with a servos so it can manually or automatically zoom in to your face/body, but that seems overly complex, not an Apple solution.

I don't know about the US but in the UK most of the high street electrical retailers sell Apple computers now so I don't think that would be a problem.

Not everyone has or wants cable or sat. Maybe Apple could offer subscriptions to cable channels streaming over the net? Switch on your TV and you get a menu of channels available - tick the ones you want and hey presto. It works with MLB TV - I can watch all the baseball I like now without having to pay for ESPN through cable/sat.

A lot of TV channels are available online now anyway. Maybe they would be happy to provide content to an Apple TV to break up the cable/sat strangle hold.

People already mentioned the audio receiver, but they are cheating on the DVR part. I guess they are implying TIVO, but if you have Comcast service, most would get the DVR from them. That would save that $299 and the +$12 a month for tivo subscription by just getting the $12 a month DVR. If you get a cablecard instead from Comcast, it is no charge (at least when I had Comcast; now on Fios). Removing this alone from the ad put the equipment under AppleTV.

You would buy/rent HD movies from iTunes Store rather than watch a Blu-Ray. That's the whole point - it's a one box solution. One TV with no ugly cable/sat/dvd/bluray/xbox/etc boxes underneath. It's a minimalists dream.

The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that it makes no sense for Apple to get into the TV business if they are going to be selling the same complicated crud as already exists in the market place. For this reason I would think the possibility of said Apple branded television having separate speakers placed around the room is essentially zero.

Software wise there is no reason to do a TV at all because the current Apple TV does everything, or could potentially handle everything that is necessary. That means the new Apple branded TV would have to be a hardware coup, more than a software one.

Simplifying the hardware means removing all the extra boxes and wires. It means no external speakers, and likely no cable TV at all. Everything built-in, no buttons, one power cord.

Anything less would just be another TV. Even putting the inputs on the back turns it into another TV just like any other because people will hook up a dozen cruddy boxes to it. It won't even have inputs beyond what the current Apple TV hardware has, so HDMI and one USB (maybe).

I really think you are failing to think outside of the box on this one. Every argument you make against the TV has multiple possible solutions.

Here you seem to be primarily arguing that the shipping and storage cost of large TV's is going to be so crippling that they won't even enter the market as a result? what? That sounds really off to me. It's old-fashioned thinking at best.

An Apple branded TV would be shipped world-wide. Why on earth do you insist on assuming that it would have to deal with American cable TV problems? I don't see any reason why such a product would include cable at all nor why it should it have to, to be successful.

I agree - and therein lies the temptation. This is something Apple could do... theoretically, and I am certain they would love to do it. Its a tough nut to crack and it would be a tough sell, but hardest of all would be the content part. The content providers are not about lie down and die. Unless Apple could convince them to change their business models and to let Apple package their content... I can't see it.

You can't turn the set on with an iPhone because the iPhone is working over the network. The TV (at least TVs and other electronics released so far) can't recognize the incoming command from the network when they're turned off. So the iPhone (or iPad) has to trigger another device which in turn, triggers the TV via control functionality.

Maybe Apple will find a way around this, similar to the way you can (supposedly) send a command over the network to wake up the Mac.

I'm not optimistic about the functionality of an Apple TV. In an effort to streamline the UI, my bet is that you'll be able to connect a cable box and an Apple box (if it's not built in) and not much else. I'd be surprised if it has HDMI provisions for Blu-ray or an A/V multichannel receiver. I'm also not optimistic about it having ISF calibration controls or being up to the picture quality of the new Sharp Elites, the now defunct Pioneer Kuros (plasma), the top-of-the-line Sony HX929 or the Panasonic VT30 (plasma). I also bet the parameters you can adjust will be extremely limited.

One approach Apple could take (although I doubt that they will) is to provide a device to perform an automatic in-home calibration of the set the same way as audio receivers come with Audysey or another calibration program. No one else is doing that for a TV today. Some sets provide a THX mode, which many calibrators will tell you "isn't bad" out of the box on some models.

While I agree that the UI on current offerings, especially when combined with external components, is a nightmare, since there's no rumors of Apple working with such vendors, I suspect an Apple television would solve the problem by over-simplifying the UI to the point of eliminating functionality. Some people will think this is great and others will think it's terrible. If I'm correct, expect such a device to get slammed on the forums dedicated to A/V and the like.

But the prospect of using Siri to control the device, if effective and error-free, does sound very interesting, although it may sound like this:

Hubby: Siri, turn on the TV.
Hubby: Siri, what Sports are on?
(SiriTV responds)
Hubby: Turn to the NFL game.
SiriTV: Sorry, I don't understand you.
Hubby: Turn to the EN...EF....ELLLL game.
Wifey (from next room): What?
Hubby: Nothing.
SiriTV: Sorry, I don't understand you.
Wifey: What'd you say?
Hubby: I didn't say anything
SiriTV: Sorry, I don't understand you.
Wifey: Don't tell me you didn't say anything, I heard you.
Hubby: I was....on my phone.
Wifey: On the phone, talking to who?
Hubby: To Siri.
SiriTV: Yes?
Wifey: If you're on the sex line again, I'm going to kill you.
Hubby: I'm not on the sex line.
SiriTV: Sex line. Would you like PornCall, HotChicks or Almost18?
Wifey: What was that?
Hubby: Gezus...where's my regular remote control?

The music player market was a cut throat business. How well did Apple do there?

The PC market is a cut throat business. Last I checked Apple is growing like gang busters

The cell phone market is an even bigger cut throat business. Care to take a shot as to how well Apple did there?

Don't forget to add the tablet market or shall I say the iPad market. And this 10 years after MS tried fiddling with the idea of tablets and failed at it

Shall I go on?

It's amazing how everytime Apple enters a new market people are quick to cut them down without giving them a chance.

I don't understand why apple would do this. Quite aside from the technical arguments, why would they want to offer something that a consumer is going to buy once. The TV in my lounge is 5 years old and works fine. It will be probably work fine for another 5.

Their foray into CE has been based around things that are easily replaced on a cycle. I would find it unlikely that people would re hang a television every two years, not to mention the terrible environmental stewardship that would entail.

1) Apple has a long history of focusing on the US market first, and then growing their brand. The US is still their largest single country for sales. I don't see Apple ignoring the US market for a product.

2) I've thought of a lot of ways this could work, all trying to think of how this nut could be cracked. Doing what all others are doing isn't cracking anything, it's just following in the footsteps of your competitors. I can't see Jobs saying that he figured out he needs to step in the footsteps of Samsung with a TV.

3) Logistics and physics are important. You can't put a $1000 50" HDTV in the space of a $2000 15" MBP. The items don't scale or work the same way. You also need to consider the revenue and profit. Look at how the iPod has been deprecated with this last special event as it becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of Apple's business. Are HDTVs likely to rival their iPad and iPhone business. Is sacrificing sales of them to store TVs in stores going to make sense?

4) Cable is an issue! These are a standard utility in the US. Furthermore, they are intertwined with the stations and networks very tightly. You can't simply say you'll stream all content over the internet when the cable internet service you're using is already paying huge lump sums for the access. These are important payments for the networks. Why do you think GoogleTV felt like such a threat? Of all the nuts this is the toughest to crack. Ignoring it will not solve it. I'm sure one day this union will falter and it won't be pretty but as of yet no one has come with a solution to break it apart. Well, maybe Jobs, but has yet to be seen, but slapping an Apple logo on a few TVs isn't going to cut it.

5) Putting a box inside another box isn't thinking outside the box. I'm not against Apple entering this market. I'm all for it, I just haven't heard much "out of the box thinking" that would revolutionize the market, outside of Siri integration.

Apple just entered a new market?

Which one? When?

I'd much rather see the AppleTV evolve with yearly or bi-yearly updates. The TV monitor won't change YoY, but getting a faster, better AppleTV HW so you can run AppleTV App Store apps would be great.

If they created the Apple TV to be more powerful you could plug your choice of vendor and size of HDTV into the back of the AppleTV so it turns on with the AppleTV.

You can then have an AppleTV that is considerably less expensive to update instead of waiting a half-decade or more. You also get the option to have an AppleTV in every room in your home where you want a TV, not just rooms that can support huge TVs.

deleted

Or I could press a single button that brings up a Guide for me. It's even quicker.

It'll be interesting to see what Aple does in such a low margin, mature business like TVs, but I'm not replacing my 50" TV unless it breaks. I have invested in several peripherals (PS3 as a Netflix & general media player) and I really cant see myself changing anytime soon.

I'll swap out my phone, I'll change PC/Macs and I may even change content provider for TV (sat vs internet vs cable). Still, let's see what is compelling about Apple's offer. If it's just a means to deliver their content to me now, well I have a way to do that already and it's nothing new.

My guess is that most computers are less than 5 years old and work fine when they are replaced. My guess is that many iPads were replaced by iPad2s after only a year.

The old stuff gets passed down to the kids.

Yes. You have to turn it off on the computer via the preferences.

Quick, Hard Candy had better make cases for the new TV, before it's announced!

Apple HDTV launching in December 2011

Someone may already have answered but yes there is a way to fix that.

at least I seem to recall a way to pair the remote with a specific computer so that only that computer replies to a given remote.

Oh really? You do know that Apple is already the world's largest consumer of NAND memory, and thus gets the best component prices? And that Apple has signed contracts with Toshiba and other LCD panel manufacturers, right? And that Apple uses their own customized ARM chip instead of buying off-the-shelf Intel chips, right?

Do you see how iPad was cheaper than competitors' models with "the usual Apple hardware flair"? Apple did that by using their component purchasing leverage to negotiate lower prices. Hence their 40% hardware margin. Same thing in TVs.

And no, Apple wouldn't need to make their television cheaper. Same price or slightly higher and they'll sell just as many.

My dad, an old adman, use to say that TV shows were just filler for the commercials. If Apple controls the programming then they would own the ad revenue too. Seems to work well for Google and their searches.

You just upped the stakes considerably. If all content goes through Apple, bypassing the traditional middlemen and handing much of the advertising delivery over to Apple it would indeed revolutionize the industry. Apple would have to to some very shrewd manoeuvring to pull something like that off.

I think the cable, satellite companies and the content providers are going to have to partner with Apple before we see an Apple Television.

Nobody would buy an Apple TV because of the super high gloss screen.

However, if Apple got into the bathroom mirror business...

As terrible as TV remotes and interfaces are, the key problem here is the content oligopoly of the TV networks and carriers. The reason TV interfaces are bad is because they have so much control. It's not because OEMs could not make smarter TVs. OEMs like Samsung are already adding apps that make their smartphone smart remotes for their TVs.

This is the reason Google TV never took off. Google wasn't trying to compete with Apple TV. Their vision was much bigger than that. They wanted to dumb down cable to just information/entertainment option among many services. The cablecos didn't like that.

Plug any quality TV into the Mac Mini and you have something close to AppleTV already.
Full computer facilities, DVD playback, facebook, browser, wireless keyboard & mouse - shop around and this should not cost much more than £$1,100

I like the Apple Remote. It's a thing of beauty. Minimalist, clean design, essential functionality, very similar to the click wheel on the iPods (would be awesome if it HAD a click wheel). I use it with Front Row. The remote itself appears cast from a single solid block of aluminum with no visible seams or cutlines. No one else makes a solid metal remote.

Damn I hope this rumor is true

I work in the Vision department at a well-known electrical retailer in the UK and I'm starting to get bored of selling Samsung/Sony/Panasonic 3D LED Smart TV's.

Whilst these TV's (especially the Samsung TV's) look stunning, the Smart TV interface on these sets look clunky and awkward. Although customers like the idea of streaming content from different devices to a TV and accessing the Internet, no one has managed to do this in a compelling way yet as far as I'm concerned. I really do get frustrated demoing them sometimes.

I guess being an Apple fan I've been spoilt with beautifully made hardware/software and fantastic user experience!!

With iOS interface, SIRI and the iTunes/App store ecosystem (and the fact that a lot of customers own iPhones/iPod Touches) Apple could really do something amazing.

Although price is an important factor for many customers, there are still enough customers who are prepared to pay a premium price for a premium product. Apple could easily own this space.

My gut feeling though is that we will see another set-top-box instead...

Either way, 2012 is going to an exciting time!

Well you are a smart person and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with almost everything you've wrote here. I think you are not only wrong, you are "crazy wrong" on this. I don't understand why you can't see it.

No way in a million years would any Apple branded TV deal with cable TV and the networks as they exist today. That would be half the point of the reinvention.

Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly stated that it can't exist with the today's market until that is cracked. You and others seem to be defending the point that slapping an AppleTV in a TV would inherently make it great.

I've been asking since this rumour appears how they could change this tightly integrated relationships yet all I ever get is that an Apple branded TV would be awesome because it would have an Apple logo or reduce the clutter of one device. That isn't revolutionary at all and GoogleTV has shown that the networks are willing to fight swiftly and fiercely for their guaranteed revenue streams when threatened.

Where is the scenario that makes shows how Apple could possibly achieve this goal of reinventing the way content distributers, content providers, content owners, and content supporters (ad revenue) all interact with each other that a TV OEM would be able to take pole position in this business. I don't see a potential path to victory in this entire thread.

I'm asking for a potential solution. A framework. A "what if" sequence of events that, even if just on paper in a perfect world, could demonstrate how this could be tackled by a company with the resources and bargaining power of Apple. And as I've clearly stated many times, I'd love for Apple to accomplish this, so if I'm crazy for wanting this then so is everyone else.

To date I've argued against the idea of Apple making a TV, but just to play devil's advocate, why would it need to cost $5,000? Apple could certainly engineer a basic, high quality LCD TV that would be reasonably cost competitive with higher end offerings from, for instance, Samsung or Sony. Add to that the necessary hardware/software to make the thing compelling-- a somewhat souped up Apple TV, sans case and power supply, plus specialized iOS software for DVR and UI duties.

Since the Apple TV retails for $99, I think Apple could easily build in quite a bit of functionality for a few hundred dollars, accounting for say a 64GB flash drive for recording and storage.

Right? Take the price of one of Samsung's higher end TVs and add say $300. Let's say $2000-$2500 for a 55" LED LCD set.

If it really does everything people are imagining-- if it can record, subscribe to some kind of iTunes pass, display all your iCloud pictures and movies, play all your iCloud music, run Netflix streaming as well as the usual other services, run iOS apps and games, and do all that with a dead simple Apple UI that possibly includes Siri, then I think plenty of folks would be willing to pay that. Or quite a bit less for a 46" similarly equipped.

EDIT: Posted before I saw Soli's post above-- I'm probably the wrong one to figure out a winning path here, since I've always been an Apple branded TV skeptic, but I guess if you had all of the above plus just simple channel switching and basic search (which could after all just be a Siri hook to an existing internet TV listing) and it didn't cost a great deal more than comparable, less equipped sets, then Apple could sell a lot of them. I don't know if that means they'd want to, but I think they could.

I think Google TV ran athwart of the content providers because it tried to turn TV content into part of Google's web search paradigm. Apple needn't do that, they could just marry a very easy to use conventional cable ready TV with a built in DVR and super intuitive voice control for scheduling and search, plus all that iOS goodness and iCloud access to your own media. I don't think the content providers could object to that, Apple isn't demanding that they make their stuff available via some ad revenue denying roundabout way. iCloud works very nicely with iTunes video sales, which plays nice with the content providers rights. Apple has a much more content owner friendly setup than Google, who seems determined to make everything into freely accessible web properties that they can monetize with ad sales.

I think Siri is a great UI choice for an Apple TV. It would have that "magical" feel that made iPods (click-wheel) & iPhones (multi-touch) dominant. However, because Siri is still in beta, I doubt that Apple's TV will be ready in 2012. Maybe another year to polish the tech to a glossy finish.

Content is also important. I don't think Apple will (or should) release a TV until they can get a majority of broadcast content onto the device. You won't be 'wowed' by it if you ask it to play the latest episode of your favorite TV show and you get "Sorry Dave, I can't do that" in response. Apple needs to announce deals with enough TV networks (like they did with the record labels) to make the the other ones jump aboard too.