Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report - Page 2

SO I GUESS I'LL RESIGN MYSELF TO USING MY TELEVISION LIKE THIS FROM NOW ON, BECAUSE HOW ELSE IS SIRI GOING TO HEAR ME?

Seriously.

Is there anything in a TV which is not already included in a computer? Keep in mind that TV tuner cards have been on the market for over a decade.

A TV is just a computer with a tuner instead of a motherboard. And we've seen how Apple can minimize the expense of a motherboard - look at the electronics in the iPad. They are minimal.

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.

So what is it about a TV which is different from that which is already being built for Apple?

Based upon my experience with AppleTV gen 2, I'd never buy an Apple television.

It would be a risk of thousands of dollars upon the gamble that Apple would put adequate hardware capability into the television.

AppleTV gen 2 is underpowered, unable to keep the display properly updated while high-resolution audio is being played. Scrolling is horrifically slow, taking minutes for me to scroll down to ZZ Top in the Artists list.

I am mildly annoyed at Apple for putting out an underpowered $99 AppleTV gen 2. But I also have lost any confidence that Apple will properly design a mass-consumer device like a television.

I'd be amazed if they didn't integrate it into iCloud to allow the purchase of content remotely.

However I still think you could talk to a TV. With a combination of facial tracing and directional microphones you can have a single point that you can talk to with multiple people in the room.

"Why would Apple ever get into the music player business? It will be a huge mistake and I don't see how it will benifit them."

So, will this alleged tv set have a QUAM tuner that can interface with existing cable provider headend? Or will this product just interact with Netflix/Hulu services only?

That is what I find most interesting about this speculation.

They would make their entrance by offering something enticing that nobody else does to compete with existing low end TVs. There will be no contest vs. high end products on both price and features. It is always an easy win for Apple against high end products. Nobody can beat their engineering and supply chain in that category.

If they found a way to make the set top box easy to use and integrated with iTunes and other Apple devices then they can easily take a big part of the market. It will be interesting to see if they are integrating with existing providers or becoming their own provider. Kinda feels like the rumors surrounding the initial iPhone speculating if they would become a virtual operator.

"Why would Apple ever get into the genetically enhanced cattle business? It will be a huge mistake and I don't see how it will benefit them."

You can't just magically apply that to anything. You have to have some sense of logic behind it.


Can someone tell me why I want an integrated set top box as opposed to an Apple TV with an A6 chip that I never have to update?

I believe that many here think of the completion for this TV to be one of those brutes hanging on the wall in walmart.
Since this is all speculation, I speculate that the product apple is going after is most like the Bose Videowave, in price and function.

That makes it a different ballgame.

What the the heck are you taking about? You clearly don't understand Apple at all, just like Apple's competitors.

Can't wait for this but ALSO make it easy for me to get my broadband through Apple.

IPTV doesn't need DVR.

They may have both options, but I suspect that if they require a set top box it may have something to do with HDCP (copy protection) or licensing with content providers.

If the AppleTV is updated, hopefully they will add support to control the TV via the HDMI cable. That is the one thing that keeps me from using my AppleTV to push video from my iPad or iPhone. I wish it would just automatically change inputs when I send video. My PS3 will do this and that is awesome. The Samsung remote is a pain to use for input switching.

deleted

Ahem....don't you guys get it?

Al Gore and Tim Cook both saying that they're excited about Apple's product pipeline + 60 Minutes interview where Walter Isaacson mentions Steve's desire of an Apple TV type product = source close to an Asian component supplier.

Gene Munster did his homework and knows what he's talking about!

BTW: It'll just be a box, not the monitor, like the current ATV only much more capable (yes, Siri).

Apple hasn't embraced BluRay yet and I don't expect them to. The bigger question is, "How will an Apple HDTV wirelessly receive a 1080P signal?"

I don't care about BluRay, but my Mac Mini is putting out 1080P and I'd love to do away with that HDMI cable.

Directional microphones and active noise control.

Actually, since the Apple HDTV would know exactly what is coming through the speakers and the distortion from your room is pretty much static the noise cancellation is going to be damn near perfect.

You wouldn't be able to whisper to it or anything but you could easily speak in your normal voice even when the TV volume is blaring.

Next question?

Why not. It currently will receive a 720P signal wirelessly. I don't see why they wouldn't change that if the AppleTV specs are bumped up slightly.

What's the problem? They could have you talk in your iPhone, talk in the remote, use a directional mic aimed at the room sweet spot, use a camera to detect the speaker (maybe even lip read), use a noise canceling algorithm, etc.

Play it again, sam! Haha.

is that image suggesting that this TV will eliminate the need for an audio receiver?

...maybe a $149 receiver... but it's got to have magic dust if they expect me to ditch mine for some built in speakers.

[QUOTE=Tallest Skil;1973073]"Why would Apple ever get into the genetically enhanced cattle business? It will be a huge mistake and I don't see how it will benefit them."

You can't just magically apply that to anything. You have to have some sense of logic .?[/ QUOTE]


You're correct there, but we only have a rumor based on a statement made in the he bio. It could be any thing from a new version of the Apple T.V., to a new use of existing monitors to a entire television concept that has not been considered before.

We have no clue at this point. But we all know what Apple can do and whenApple decides to do something it's usually pretty magical. The point is don't count the out before you even see what the quote means, or you may well have to eat you worlds like a Microsoft CEO.

Apple's insistence on serial interfaces really annoys me. I like random access, and Apple is obsessed with lists. I suppose that they feel it is easier for an unsophisticated user to deal with, but it is slow.

If I had to pick TV shows via something like Cover Flow, I would go bonkers.

Ah well, looks like Apple has no chance then

I was one of those that was a little skeptical of Apple moving into this business. Now the signs are pretty obvious, beginning with the Steve Jobs biography. If Steve was working on it during the last year or so of his life when he knew his time was short, this tells me it's a high priority at Apple.

But again, this is a technology that historically has been extremely competitive and awful on margins. History marks large brands that were big in TV once but are no longer or don't exist anymore....Magnavox, Motorola, Mitsubishi...even Sony no longer rules the roost. So what can Apple bring to the table?

The big problem these days that the big TV manufacturers (Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, Vizio & Sony) aren't very good at is technology integration outside of traditional broadcasting. We've seen the efforts so far in putting apps into TV and most of them really suck. The one with the best platform is Sony with Google TV and we all know how Google TV really took over the set-top box market. </sarcasm>.

Given that we know for a fact that Apple is working on this and given the technology we've seen out of them in recent months, it's clear now where this is all going to go: a large screened, iOS powered, voice controlled, iCloud-enhanced, FaceTime enabled and video game playing game changer. It'll integrate directly into your iTunes library, be it on your network or iCloud. So it will play your movies, music videos and all of your music. iOS developers will get access to make their own apps that will be remote or maybe even voice controlled, so we'll see Netflix and other services. Apple will get their own streaming service up and running as an option. It will certainly be addressable either over Ethernet or Bluetooth...not sure if they will include IR or not. It will have at least the A5 processor running behind it but it is probably a great platform for a quad-core A6. Voice control with Siri will be like something out of freaking Star Trek, and you'll be able to do all the things you talk about in previous example.

Hell, I could see a set like this end up in executive conference room and offices. Could you imagine being able to to multi-party FaceTime conferences in business using a single voice-enabled TV in your office? Companies use video conferencing now but if I were Cisco or others who do this, I'd be concerned to say the least. And of course, weather, stocks and other business news would be available easily and instantly. What I'm really interested in is how it will integrate into the current home theater landscape. HDMI standards for device control are just now coming into their own and it still isn't the easiest thing to operate. It would take a company like Apple to solve all of this. And what about DVR features? Even if Apple offers streaming services, not everyone is going to want to ditch their cable provider just yet. What if you could easily add storage and DVR anything and actually had a cable card or TruTV system that actually worked without the hassle? It would kill Tivo dead and limit the attractiveness of cable boxes made by Motorola...er, Google. Talk about disruption.

Finally's Apple's the only company with enough supply chain dominance to make all this work and still turn in decent margins. Just like iPhones, iPads and Macs, there won't be nearly as many product SKUs as competitors. Apple will probably do two, maybe three screen sizes (46", 55" and maybe 65"?) and a few different features to differentiate them. One thing for sure...I would pay cash money for a TV solution like that and I imagine a lot of people would too. And for people who already have a TV, how about a new Apple TV box that does most of this stuff?

Gene Munster? Piper Jaffray? Oh, for the love of Jobs, why does anyone listen to him? He works for a stock-trading company (the trade APPL stock by the way) and talks this Apple-TV-Bullshit year after year.

You have to 'pair' the remote.

J.

With the iPad and MBA, Apple has proven they can reinvent a product category and price it at not only a competitive level but at a level that cannot be matched. The key is not so much pricing as it is about value.

The reinvention is key because it creates demand as well as features and traits that cannot be matched by conventional engineering and manufacturing. The anticipated demand is on a scale that allows them to manage and in fact choke the supply chain. The two-pronged approach creates a value proposition exemplified in the iPad and MBA, which competitors have yet to truly match, never mind beat.

It is possible they can repeat with televisions.

Is the TV industry too much of a cutthroat business for even Apple to enter? I too used to be skeptical about this, particularly since Gene Munster has been the primary source of rumors. But look at Vizio and how they came out of nowhere to become a dominant TV brand in the US. Furthermore, now that Jobs had de facto confirmed the TV project. There's no question something is afoot. Whether a product will emerge in the short term (or even ever) and what it will look like remain to be seen. The biggest challenge remains content. Without content, a TV is nothing. TV show producers are adamant to keep control from Apple. How did/will Apple overcome that?

Same prediction made about the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Nobody would buy them at that price. And we all know how those predictions panned out don't we. Of course once this Apple HDTV is on the market and selling out we will then see the cheap Android knock-offs by Samsung and the rest. Oh, and before that, we will hear from the basement nerds that smart TVs have been around for years... yada yada yada.

History will repeat itself once again. That's my prediction.

It isn't just one box though. The average HDTV needs a tuner in a separate box, and amplifier in a separate box connected by wires to five other boxes that sit around your living room. Then if you watch blu-Rays or DVD's that's another two boxes to connect.

If an Apple branded HDTV was a 50" black slab that you hung on the wall and had no external boxes of any kind (not even speakers and amplifier), it would qualify as "simplifying" the HDTV I think. I would buy one in a heartbeat as that's pretty much exactly what I've been looking for, for quite a while now.

Best response on this blog! SJ and Apple have a proven history of looking past what the rest of us already know, to create products we didn't know we need, but that we now can't imagine being without.

I completely agree. Also look at people having home cinemas. An AppleTV is also ideal for those. An HDTV is just not attractive for them. The AppleTV is great already, make it the ultimate TV thing and plug it in whatever you want to watch TV/Movies/Rentals/etc.

Not a problem with WiFi 'n'. Several 1080p streams at the same time isn't a problem.

J.

I set my parents up with an AppleTV and the remote sets off their iMac. The AppleTV starts a movie and the iMac starts playing music. I haven't found a way to stop it either.

[QUOTE=brutus009;1973082]Apple hasn't embraced BluRay yet and I don't expect them to. The bigger question is, "How will an Apple HDTV wirelessly receive a 1080P signal?"

The TV itself will be an IOS device, with the capability to produce 1080p from an internet feed, as well as a 4G source. It would probably have a wired ethernet connection as well. The A6 should be able to handle this. User interaction will be through Siri. Siri can listen through the background sound and pick out your voice. There will be no bluray or other input devices, although you could stream wirelessly from a Mac/PC or IOS device in your home. Bluetooth will allow connecting input devices.

Audio is a concern, since no TV has a really good surround sound system. There could be a wireless audio connection (bluetooth) to your high end home theater system, where DTS, DD are decoded, in addition to high quality built-in speakers.

Showing live streaming TV will be a problem unless there are agreements with the major entertainment companies. You may be able to pay just for the content you want to watch instead of the usual cable/satellite approach, and it will probably be cheaper.

Figure at least two sizes: 47 and 55. $1999 and $2499.

That question is why I think a lot of this talk of a 'real' TV is bogus.

What makes this work is the content and the UI, both of which are served by the little black box. No need for the issues of smaller stores not having the storage space for TVs so they make them online and the big flagship stores only which will piss off customers that want to drive up, pay and drive home with a tv. No need for the hassles of how to update and what do you do if something goes wrong (remember Apple doesn't provide at home service).

Munster is betting a lot on Apple doing a subscription TV service but until the networks get their heads out of the sand over how the ratings are so lacking and embrace the money other sources are getting they aren't going to risk OTA ratings with such a service.

Apple could be working with prototypes right now to consider licensing this particular tech to TV makers but I'm not sure I buy that they will make a full TV themselves. No matter what Steve Jobs allegedly said in that out of context quote that could have been from a year ago and doesn't mention the second sentence of "After considering making our own televisions we decided to leave that to the established companies and thus revamped the connecting box and that's what we are sticking with." that could have also been said

I'd love to take full credit, but the truth is I'm taking most of this stuff from what we have seen is on its way with Xbox TV

Once you've seen that video it's not hard to think about how Apple could work their own version of Xbox TV and Kinect into the Apple eco-system.

They care more. They care more about software, design, hardware, the user experience and attention to detail than any other company. That's why they are winning financially in all the markets they are in. The same will be true if they (remove the hobby status) enter the TV business for real.

Expect Sony to follow suit. And within 10 years all major consoles will be TVs.

Why would they have to be cheaper? Apple never competes primarily on price, but on features and usability. Apple products are premium products, so someone walking into Walmart and looking for the cheapest 50" TV are NOT Apple's market here. But for those who have a large investment in the iTunes ecosystem, the built in functionality would certainly be worth a premium.

Regardless of when [or if] these integrated Apple Televisions come to market, I think the biggest mistake Apple could make would be to discontinue the standalone $99 TV. People turn over their televisions even less frequently than their computers, so instead of alienating the large share of the market which recently bought a new HDTV from whatever experience tithe next iteration of TV software brings, let them buy the $99 box so they can still reap the benefits. Then, when they're in the market for a new TV, the experience of the standalone device would prompt them to buy the integrated model.

You can. Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apple+tv+pair+remote