AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report - Page 5

post #161 of 194
10/24/11 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

They could even come in under the cost of a comparable Samsung SmartTV with the lowered R&D costs for an iOS/Apple A-chip-based system.

I can't see them getting rid of the stand alone AppleTV as it's doubtful they would meet the needs of all TV sizes, features, and designs that people have throughout their homes. People here seem to be thinking only of the HEC and only of the biggest possible sets when I think any real solution would look to put an AppleTV into every room you have a TV.

Quote:
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.

If it's going to record then 64GB NAND isn't going to cut it, and that is already a pricey option that no SmartTV I'm aware has.

If there is a built-in DVR that also gets pricey, but has integrated DVR, VCR, or DVD/BRDs ever been a hit with TVs? These seem to be updated a lot more frequently than the sets themselves and one of the biggest complaints about iMacs from desktop users is that you can't get a new computer without having to replace the perfectly fine monitor.

If we're talking about server-side DVR that is currently available from service providers as On Demand services... and it's not good. I don't see how Apple could make it better than a cable company ting in directly to their node-accessed servers for On Demand content. It's painfully slow.

Siri is the only good idea I've seen for making the current experience better, but that doesn't have to be a TV, that could be done from an attached device.
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 #162 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449 View Post

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.

I'm not so sure about how long it will take Siri to go full on release-- what Apple has done with this "beta" release is to open the floodgates for the very data collection that they can use to rapidly improve the service. The more Siri hears, the smarter Siri gets, in effect.

That, and of course that even limited to the 4s the use levels have tested Apple servers. Better to get that all sorted, make sure they can handle the load, accrue all that user data, then open it up to devs to get more services included.

Those services, of course, would included entities like MLB, the NFL, broadcast and cable properties, and movie and television show data bases.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #163 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

I see the disconnect here then.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.

While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.

They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.

It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:16pm
Most of the concepts imagined here require very little creativity or innovation. They merely "slap together" the best of "current technology." No doubt that would make a good product, but Apple has never taken that approach to new markets (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc).

I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]. But then sales will take off and every other tv maker and his ucle will be chasing Apple's new concept with their own cheap plastic immitations--a cycle we are all quite familiar with.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.

Note that pairing a remote with a device (AppleTV) does not stop that remote from controlling other devices (MacBook).

It simply stop other remotes from controlling that device.

The best option is to turn of the Infrared port on the MacBook.

https://discussions.apple.com/servle...t+23.56.10.png
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They could even come in under the cost of a comparable Samsung SmartTV with the lowered R&D costs for an iOS/Apple A-chip-based system.

I can't see them getting rid of the stand alone AppleTV as it's doubtful they would meet the needs of all TV sizes, features, and designs that people have throughout their homes. People here seem to be thinking only of the HEC and only of the biggest possible sets when I think any real solution would look to put an AppleTV into every room you have a TV.

True.

Quote:
If it's going to record then 64GB NAND isn't going to cut it, and that is already a pricey option that no SmartTV I'm aware has.

If there is a built-in DVR that also gets pricey, but has integrated DVR, VCR, or DVD/BRDs ever been a hit with TVs? These seem to be updated a lot more frequently than the sets themselves and one of the biggest complaints about iMacs from desktop users is that you can't get a new computer without having to replace the perfectly fine monitor.

Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.

I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.

Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.

At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.

Quote:
If we're talking about server-side DVR that is currently available from service providers as On Demand services... and it's not good. I don't see how Apple could make it better than a cable company ting in directly to their node-accessed servers for On Demand content. It's painfully slow.

Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.

Quote:
Siri is the only good idea I've seen for making the current experience better, but that doesn't have to be a TV, that could be done from an attached device.

True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.

BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #167 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

True.



Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.

I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.

Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.

At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.



Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.



True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.

BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.

I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #168 of 194
10/24/11 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I see the disconnect here then.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.

While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.

They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.

It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.

If the ad revenue that pays for the content…
that is owned by the networks…
that is sold directly to the service providers or sold to their affiliate stations who sell it to service providers for very large up front costs…
who (in the case of cable AT&T U-verse/DSL, or Verizon FIOS) are also supplying your internet connection…
and are so co-dependent upon one another, how do you get around all that?

Apple already had a lot of trouble with TV and movies on iTunes Store without any direct disruption to that revenue stream. They were able to get the music because that business model was already suffering greatly from illegal internet downloads.

Right now many pay for cable and internet with one bill, at least in the US. If half those TV subscribers opted out what would they do with TV costs? They could punish those that stayed with TV access, or raise internet prices for those that are now 1) not buying the TV services they paid for in bulk, and 2) are now using a lot more data than before.

I think the current model will eventually fall, I think Apple is the prime candidate to bring them down, and it will be very, very messy. It's a domino effect that could even hurt the quality of content if advertisers don't have faith in viewership. How do local and regional advertisers get their ads out if it's a homogenous internet-based system?


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.

The latest TiVo has 4 tuners and 2 TB of storage for 300 hours of HD storage.

•

http://www.tivo.com/products/tivo-pr...e_mantle_elite I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.
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 #169 of 194
10/24/11 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

holy crap, and to think I've been called a fanboy - I hope you're never allowed into the wild.

No, you're just an idiot to think that something like that won't be sorted.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #170 of 194
10/24/11 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.

Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #171 of 194
10/24/11 at 5:45pm
If Apple actually makes a true HDTV that is relatively straightforward in design, I expect ultra-competitive price-points. You're talking about 1080P LED-Backlit LCD screens offered in 40", 46" and 55" sizes most likely. Then you take the guts of an Apple TV set-top box essentially, add more internal storage, HDMI inputs and revised software. This is a lot less expensive to manufacture than you may think. 1080P panels come down in price every day and are a lot more straightforward to manufacturer than a retina display iPhone screen.

If they really wanted to be competitive, I could see them putting out a 40" version at $799 and still making a healthy profit. Jump up to a 46" version for $899 or go for a 55" version at $999. I think at most you'll see a 40" version starting at $999 and jumping up by $100 for each size increase.

There's absolutely no way Apple will put out an Apple HDTV that starts at $1999 or even $1499. The market for such TV's is far too small and it's backwards from Apple's current path. Remember, as far as internal storage and processors go, Apple will still have the benefit of high-volume purchasing power as the same parts are used across the entire iOS device family. And again, LED-backlit 1080P displays drop in price everyday.

Bottom line: expect nothing less than breakthrough pricing for yet another device that will revolutionize an industry. They are more than smart enough to know that a $1999 Apple HDTV will flop, and they're smart enough to know that there's absolutely no good reason to charge such a price for an Apple iOS product in 2011. Volume is everything.
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 194
10/24/11 at 5:51pm
If Apple does come out with a TV that's similar in concept to our current TV, I think it will be a flop. It will have to be dramatically different from what we call TV right now for it to be able to stand out in market place.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 194
10/24/11 at 5:56pm
Also, don't expect Apple to compete with cable companies too much at first. The cable companies still hold too many cards considering they are the providers of the critical internet connections Apple would need to transmit data. Not only that, if certain people watched as much HDTV-content via the internet as they do on broadcast TV, they would easily run up against their monthly bandwidth limits. Expect deals with the major cable players like Comcast at first. Have any of you used their iOS app? It's rather outstanding considering it's coming from Comcast. Further integration of that basic control and guide premise into an Apple HDTV should give you an idea of what will come of it. I'm not expecting them to be able to eliminate the cable box from the equation yet either, though who knows if they strike up a good partnership. What might be more likely is Comcast issuing new boxes that would communicate with an Apple HDTV and stream content to it over a wifi network to avoid the need for an HDMI connection.
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The latest TiVo has 4 tuners and 2 TB of storage for 300 hours of HD storage.
http://www.tivo.com/products/tivo-pr...e_mantle_elite

Yeah, that's what I figured. That's insane overkill brought on by spec inflation and cheap drives. Who in their right mind wants to store 300 hours of HD video on a fragile, slow HD?

And if the idea is to use your DVR as some kind of archival storage, well, that's a really bad idea. I'm willing to bet that the average user never watches DVRed content more than once, twice at the most, and all that room just ends up getting filled with old episodes of shows you no longer care about, slowing down performance and complicating access.

Quote:
I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.

Right, and just to be thorough lets also consider that 240GB SS drives are retailing for around $400 at the moment. Apple could obviously get them for far less, but that's still a big expense if your just making a DVR. But as part of a $2000 TV? Seems doable.

At any rate, I think 50 hours or so of HD video would be a reasonable amount. Enough to record even the most avid viewers stuff during a weeks vacation. If Apple could do 50 hours of decent quality HD on a SS drive I think it would be well worth the additional expense, particularly when people get a look at the speed and fluidity that brings to the whole process.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #175 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcom006 View Post

Also, don't expect Apple to compete with cable companies too much at first.

The cable companies will be the FIRST casualties after Apple releases their 'non-hobby' Apple TV.

Quote:
monthly bandwidth limits.

Whose monthly bandwidth limits? There's no monthly bandwidth limit on TV, and home ISPs who don't deserve to be pooped on don't cap home Internet.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #176 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:21pm
Why not a "whole-home" system like DirecTV has for DVR and such?

One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:28pm
If this has been mentioned before, I apologize, but I do want to share with all of you the direction I hope that Apple takes this.

They need to find a way to integrate an "a la carte" sort of cable. So if I want to pay for everything that the Discovery Channel plays, then I pay for that one channel. It is the actual live broadcast of the Discovery Channel, not tape delayed or inferior in any way. The same can be done with any broadcast station, including channels normally only broadcast in Asia or Europe or what have you.

Although this idea is incredibly intuitive, its very difficult for most companies to deal with the cable companies and their incredibly sweet deals that they have with their networks. Apple is certainly a company that could shake that up, much like they shook up the music industry and phone market. As someone who does not want to pay $70 / month for about 10 desired channels, I cannot express how much I would love this set up.

Outside of that, I would expect all of the expected features, such as YouTube integration, DVR included in the actual TV, search features, no cable box required (everything ought to be built in, so no requirement for attachments or cables)... Include this sort of service and I will guarantee a purchase no matter how expensive!
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

if you think: click/up/click/down/right/right/right/select is some kind of genius UI paradigm then I don't know what to say.

no but a remoteless TV with Siri is.
wow you are dolt. You think a TV like this would not come up Siri.

Apple modernized and popularized input devices, and now they are taking them away.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The cable companies will be the FIRST casualties after Apple releases their 'non-hobby' Apple TV.



Whose monthly bandwidth limits? There's no monthly bandwidth limit on TV, and home ISPs who don't deserve to be pooped on don't cap home Internet.

I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place. You really think the ISP's will give up without a fight? No way, no how. I don't like it and nobody at Apple likes it, but again, Apple's smart enough to know exactly what will happen if they try to compete directly. They're also smart enough and big enough to bring the negotiating power to the table that will make partnerships between TV/internet providers and Apple work out best for the consumer.

On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's. Too many people have multiple television sets that won't all get the Apple HDTV treatment due to countless variables such as cost and size. And even if you were to suggest that the current Apple TV would bridge that gap, you still have bandwidth concerns if multiple people are trying to stream HD content all at once. Many people don't have the connection speed to properly stream 1 HD stream well let alone 2-3.

Do I really need to go on? I'm all for the streaming revolution, believe me, and I can't stand the cable companies, but objectively, there's just going to be no getting around them for some time. But again, Apple knows how to deal with the "orifices" better than anyone, so we're in good hands. And chances are a partnership would only lead to better access to TV-based media on the iPhone and iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisbru View Post

Why not a "whole-home" system like DirecTV has for DVR and such?

One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?

I thought about something like that as well. What if an Apple HDTV was more like an AirPlay monitor with only a power cord? Meanwhile, a connectivity box could allow other for other input sources that could then be available on multiple screens throughout the house, perhaps even iPhone, iPad and computers. I'm not sure how elegant of a solution that is to Apple though.

What I think is more likely is streamed content comparable to that possible with the Apple TV and partnerships with cable providers who will offer cable boxes that communicate with the Apple HDTV software and wirelessly stream, via AirPlay or otherwise, cable TV content to the TV. I struggle to imagine Apple putting out an HDTV that requires 2 pieces. It's possible and makes sense in many ways (LG is already doing something like this), but I think it's generally unlikely.
Reply
Reply
post #181 of 194
10/24/11 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcom006 View Post

I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place.

Except they can't do that legally. The court battle will last two years, Apple will win, and it will be illegal to put bandwidth caps on ANYONE'S Internet use.

The end.

Quote:
On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's.

You're absolutely right. Which is why Apple will never release an HDTV, they'll perfect the Apple TV.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #182 of 194
10/24/11 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.

Yep, I agree with that. Giving people a legit search of content seamlessly in a fairly affordable appliance looks viable to me. If Apple did actually enter this market, I definitely think that it would take a little time though to reach profitability (through hardware sales and not revenue from content).
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #183 of 194
10/24/11 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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 rumor 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.

It all depends on whether Apple want to "iPod" the TV market or "iMac" the TV market.

For a true TV revolution (and for Apple to "iPod" the market) the hardware is only half the solution. Apple would need access to the content as well and, depending on where you live in the world, the ability to deliver that content.

However, I don't think the content owners and cable companies will ever hand control over to Apple in the way that Apple need them to. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible for Apple to completely revolutionize the TV market, but for it to occur Apple would need to take some pretty drastic actions (like buying Disney and Comcast) so I think it's unlikely.

That said, I don't think it's impossible for Apple to work with existing players in the market. Have a look at what Microsoft are doing with TV on the Xbox and how it integrates with Kinect.

Whilst it's not the perfect solution everyone wants, the ability to launch a "Comcast" or "Verizon FiOS" app on your Apple TV (or iPad for that matter) and access the content that way is much better than using a separate cable box.

Where I've changed my opinion is that I think it's worth it for Apple to "iMac" the TV market. By that I mean they could create a premium "Smart TV" that works within the Apple ecosystem. This would allow them to skim the cream off the top of the market, maintaining profit margins, and let the existing TV manufacturers fight it out in the rest of the (low margin) market.

To do this Apple don't need to revolutionize the TV market. They just need to offer a compelling device that integrates well with the existing Apple eco-system.
Reply
Reply
post #184 of 194
10/24/11 at 9:25pm
if the composite image in the article is suggesting audio receiver functionality (and connectivity) is integrated into the proposed Apple Television, the author doesn't know much about home theatre equipment. also, implying iTunes Store content matches, in fidelity, to the content available on pre-recorded Blu-ray media is a bit misleading.
Reply
Reply
post #185 of 194
10/24/11 at 10:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

A TV is just a computer with a tuner instead of a motherboard.

While I never use smileys, I think there is an appropriate one for that statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

It used to be that computer monitors were higher quality than TV screens. But now, lots of TV screens (most?) are 1080P, which is higher rez than most computers.

Really now? I see mostly 1200 or more pixels on a computer screen, while TV's with more than 2MP are hard to find. And besides that; they are totally different screens, not comparable. TV pixels are rectangular, computer screen pixels are square.
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
post #186 of 194
10/25/11 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV.

Lame post alert!

Perhaps that is why Apple is going to create wider stores from now on?

Upper West Side store: 54 feet tall, 75 feet wide and 30 feet deep: AI article

St. Louis Galleria (Mo.) 55 feet wide: ifoapplestore

It's an old issue; back in 2005 the stores were getting 'smelly'

But I agree that they will make way more money on iDevices than on large TV's with the whole 'size-hassle'.

Cheers,
PhilBoogie
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
post #187 of 194
10/25/11 at 4:06am
The graphic used in the article doesn't make a whole lot of sense - there's no way Apple would sell a $2,000 TV plus subscription for the following reason:



Currently Apple sells a 27" Cinema display for $999, which is far smaller than even the 40" mentioned. So they'd have to source 60" 1080p panels and be able to machine a 60" aluminium chassis in a cost-effective way with a universal mounting so it can be fixed to the wall.

They may figure this out and launch a full TV but like the rumours of the early Mac Pro, the discontinuation of the Mini, the iPhone-Mini, the iPhone 5, the iPad-Mini, the early launch of the iPad 3 etc, etc, I just don't buy it.

IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.
Reply
Reply
post #188 of 194
10/25/11 at 5:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerpro View Post

I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]

I disagree with that, but I can see why you might say it. You likely say it mostly because of the initial reach the iPad got, but the iPad was a new category and was unproven. The TV business is far more like the phone business; essentially a broken business with crappy products and dumb software, and the initial reaction of the iPhone was very positive. I see iTV being very similar. Clearly Apple's hurdle is content, if they get the content then years of planning, design and R&D will create a revolution.

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #189 of 194
10/25/11 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.

Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #190 of 194
10/25/11 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerpro View Post

I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first model of Apple TV box that isn't considered a "hobby" to them, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you].

And I'll bet absolutely anything that my reaction WILL be one of INSTANT SUCCESS.

Any Apple plan that takes the current definition of "television content service", kicks it in the genitals, and then sets it on fire and grows a new definition out of its ashes is GOING to succeed.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #191 of 194
10/25/11 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Currently Apple sells a 27" Cinema display for $999, which is far smaller than even the 40" mentioned.

Smaller, yes, but the pixel count and density is considerably higher than HDTVs hence making them considerably more costly per square inch.
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 #192 of 194
10/25/11 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.

It's difficult to get apps onto a TV using a remote. I don't see this happening at all unless they can figure out a way to build a cheap touch-based remote. Either that or have a new category of very basic apps that act like conduits for media/channels.

The benefit of the iMac is that for productivity, you get faster processors, better GPUs, more storage, a good quality bundled screen that you wouldn't necessarily have vs the Mini but an all-in-one TV offers no such benefit vs the TV because people generally have a decent TV already.

A big part of the problem I see is how to sell it. How do you sell a new TV to a world that is tired of television content and the already saturated TV market? How do you convince people who have invested in a nice display to throw it away? Even the best presenters at Apple will have a tough job taking the stage and proclaiming they have reinvented the television.

The biggest hurdle they have to overcome is content. All people want is good content, everything else just needs to get out the way. A new device, especially an expensive one is not the answer.

All the devices people use are solutions to problems. The cable box is there to supply disposable content to users who pay a subscription. The shows are packed with advertising to make it cost-effective because people wouldn't pay a ridiculous subscription charge. Blu-Ray players are there for HD content for people who don't have great internet services or where VOD services aren't offered and also for movie ownership. The DVR is there to backup disposable TV when it doesn't fit into our schedule.

To clear the set, they just have to tackle each and every one of those problems. They can allow you to buy to own and stream owned movies in 1080p but rented movies in 720p with a high enough bitrate that it replaces Blu-Ray. They can the app route for live/disposable content via apps/channels and they can subsidise it with iAd-like advertising during the shows or charge extra using pay-per-minute or subscriptions. The DVR functionality can work like ownership in that shows get stored temporarily in your online account to be streamed when you choose.

For content, they need to find a way to maintain a library that matches the largest library of their biggest competitors in every country, even if that means partnering up with them.

But again, none of that needs the panel, just the tiny $99 box.
Reply
Reply
post #193 of 194
10/25/11 at 8:23am
When Steve Jobs says he "cracked" the TV market, it means he has figured out what we didn't even know we needed.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #194 of 194
10/25/11 at 8:37am
The picture in the article makes the AppleTV $66 cheaper than the full system on the left, but:

won't you need an audio receiver to power the sound going to the speakers anyways? (or is piper jaffray implying the Apple product will have an integrated amplifier?)

Can you really compare BluRay to iTunes' 720p?

Doesn't Comcast have cheaper plans than $85? Especially since the Comcast $85 plan probably has absurdly more channels than the Apple product will have?

Can you really compare the AppleTV's gaming (scaled up iPad games?) to a $249 console?

Does anyone really expect Apple's $50-90 subscription to have unlimited DVD rentals and a TV package comparable to Comcast?

What I'm expecting here is an Apple Cinema display with a built-in AppleTV, to be launched around the same time as apple gets it's next contract sorted out with the TV/Film studios. Built-in 1TB hard drive to hold an entire iTunes collections, web surfing, AirPort, etc.

This will be another shot at eliminating the PC from the average PC user's home (trying to make the standard casual web user/emailer's home into an iPad/AppleTV combo instead of PC/HDTV combo).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report