Apple building prototype televisions for potential 2012 launch - report - Page 3

You seem to have network problems: check within settings you WiFi signal strength.
ATV2 works extremely well, and thats why I don't need an Apple TV.

J.

Jobs said that the TV will have the simplest user interface you can imagine.

Well, the simplest UI I can imagine is speech. And now, with Siri, Apple are pretty much there.

I still think it a little unlikely that Apple will produce a complete TV set, but if they don't, it certainly won't be because they don't have the technology to do it well.

Why would it have to be cheaper? Since when have Apple ever had any problems with selling goods that a more or as expensive as competitors?

This is a great post. Really good ideas

I could eventually seeing a "Siri" standalone appliance that you could put in your house. For example, the kitchen. Small, internet connected. Perhaps no screen. To simply talk to for info and to update all your other iOS devices. Not sure here... perhaps iPhone/iPad is enough

For example, "SIRI, load season 3 of West Wing on my iPad".

Another big opportunity would be to have SIRI be command and control for car electronics. Radio, weather, directions, roadside assistance, calling, texting. Car systems could be "SIRI certified". Just plug your iPhone/iPad into an integrated port. Device goes into "car-mode"

I'm glad to hear it is Apple's largest software effort. It's obvious Apple is making a huge bet. I'll be interested to hear about fast, iterative improvements to SIRI performance and rollout to additional languages and goes. I'd like to see Apple super aggressive.

Talk about a potential competitive moat

That kind of depresses me in that it looks to be breakthrough technology, but based on what the guy says, he's already sold out to Samsung or someone similar. That means Apple won't have this anytime soon but the old-school manufacturers will, (which actually makes it far less likely that Apple will compete in this market).

The vast majority of mass market consumers care little about audio quality.

If Apple integrates one of those single-array "surround sound" systems, the mass market crowd will likely be satisfied. If they sell it as something amazing and new, they will believe it.

And they can include a simple SPDIF jack for the few who care about audio. In fact, they can eliminate the speaker array on the high-end model and charge more for it, if they include some other "exclusive" feature.

If anybody knows how to market mid-tech as high end, it is Apple.

No, in your quest to be funny you missed the point that an ATV remote will also control any Macbook in the vicinity, nothing to do with pairing.

Well, the A5 can handle 1080p content, if it's in proper format (i.e. can be hardware decoded).

the last time i watched a lot of TV i was at home sick and unable to speak

*communicates with Apple TV through charades*

... but, of course, you left out the line of my post that basically says that I believe they might be able to do it but it has to be absolutely flawless in execution.

I wouldn't be in the market for an Apple HDTV. Based upon the rumors, it'd be too costly. I am fine with my simple Samsung HDTV, Comcast box and remote. No complaints and it's not difficult at all.

Why would an iTunes TV Pass not be on the already released and very cheap $99 AppleTV? Do you think it would be a great strategy to make it exclusive to a $2000+ TV set? And again, I have to keep pointing out that no matter what grand scheming ideas Apple may have, if the TV studios do NOT want to provide Apple with the content for this device, it'll just be an overpriced HDTV. Both Dell and HP can tell you how that went.

The problem with the music player and phone market was the hardware and software itself. They both sucked. However, I think that most people would agree that HDTV manufactures make great displays. Apple isn't going to "innovate" there, they'd be buying their displays from somewhere else. As for software, why integrate it into the TV when an Apple TV does just fine? Actually getting a cable subscription to work with a non-cable box device by using CableCard is such a pain in the ass that it would have to be dismissed altogether. We all know that IPTV is the future so unless Apple wants to act like a cable operator (requiring it to acquire deals with studios) or just sell you content from the store, it's not that great a plan.

The last time Jobs tried to convince TV studios to do something was TV show rentals. Two studios signed up and after a year, the experiment failed horribly.

Yeah, I love changing my ATV and my kids' music with one click.

I still don't see it. And no article has yet to detail how such a small selection of massive TVs would make logistical sense to Apple's efficient setup.



Apple's style for a very long time has been to meet or beat competitors on price points while making considerably more profit for a comparable HW class.

hah I can see the ad "Control everything. Always."

Dunno about you in particular.

But lots of folks will hear "It is magical. You can't really even understand how great it is until you use it." Then they will go to the Apple Store, get a first-class sales job, and go home with one.

Once Apple announces that they are selling like gangbusters, lots more people will want to jump on the bandwagon. Supply will be limited, increasing the desire among the early adopters. More and more people will buy them, and the rest will increasingly feel left out.

Or, at least, that is how Apple has marketed its new products lately. Maybe they will come up with an even more effective strategy next time around.

The simplest user interface could be speech but not necessarily. Once the TV is blaring it may be difficult for Siri to pick up what you are saying. A Siri that doesn't work properly would be the very worst interface. You may be able to interact with Siri on another device, which might reduce this problem somewhat but I don't think an Apple Television would require ownership of and iPhone or similar. An Apple TV would come with a basic remote.

Technology and pricing apart - the success of an Apple branded all in one television would be dependent access to content. If they can create a device which negates the cable box as well as all the other junk yet gives the end user the same amount of choices and flexibility both for now and the future, then maybe. The ability to be future proof is a much more critical feature than for the existing AppleTV because the price for a fully integrated TV set would be so much higher.

It doesn't need to be cheaper, just BETTER.


Most people that have iDevices keep them close. I know my phone is with me 98% of the time. Why? Because it's a phone.

You go to system settings on your computer and I believe it is in the security section to unpair it. A quick Google search would provide the answer for you.

I own both versions of the Apple TV and enjoy both iterations, but the common denominator for each is that I must hit input on my remote to go from "regular" TV to the Apple TV interface. A whole TV eliminates that. Add in some extra stuff and I'd be a happy camper.


Yeah, the computer and mobile phone industries aren't cutthroat at all. Not only is it full of sunshine and roses, but everyone makes a healthy profit. Look at Nokia, RIM, LG, Sony Eriksson and HP. They are just rolling in cash, profits and strippers.

Are you saying that to be competitive, an Apple TV would have to be priced similarly to other TVs on the market at a given screen size?

Because as other people have been saying, were Apple to do this I think it's a given that they would pack it with very desirable tech that other TVs lack and charge accordingly. So the real question is what folks would be willing to pay for a lot of ease of use and integration.

Say I'm looking at a $1000 Samsung LCD TV and an Apple TV of the same size that goes for somewhat more. But the Apple TV integrates DVR functionality, iTunes streaming, and iOS apps at the very least (not to mention Netflix and some of the other streaming services typically tacked on to other sets on the market). If it also features Siri voice control I would think that would be worth several hundred dollars in premium to the average consumer.

I've never been very convinced that Apple will actually do this, but if they do I hope they don't just make it look like a huge iMac. I don't think that looks scales well to TV sizes, and the aluminum bezel seem heavy and distracting compared to the average all black or very thin bezeled TVs on the market.

OTOH, my Samsung flatscreen's interface is grotesquely, extravagenlty bad, while managing to integrate poorly with a Samsung blu-ray player with a similarly (although not exactly!) bad UI. Using these products is why I think Samsung's hubris around their status as a CE innovator/leader (because they can slap Android on a lot of products that sell well), is so deeply misplaced and kind of offensive. Left to their own devices their idea of a UI is just shockingly half-assed. If Apple can come in and show them up for the hacks they are that would be all to the better, IMO.

In fact, I wonder if Apple's being pissed at Samsung for their phone look and feel hijinx might not influence their decision to enter the TV market? Cleaning Samsung's clock in one of their core businesses would probably feel pretty sweet in Cupertino, although I admit that Apple typically doesn't roll like that. Still, surely TVs are one of those messed up markets that Apple is attracted to, since there's genuine innovation to be done.

Well, if that search term didn't spring an answer, try this. I may not be hilariously funny, but at least I can work the Internet. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pair+remote+with+mac

From a TV that could be 10 or more feet away from the speaker? Speaking to my iPhone up to my ear or with headphone/mic on still has poor results with background noise. Sometimes it's some faint noise that the receiving party claims is quite loud as if I'm holding the mic up to a loudspeaker. Seems to me there is a long way to go before we can truly eliminate unwanted sounds from being processed.

But what if Steve "cracked" it by making the remote control the mic for Siri. You simply press the Siri button and speak into the remote that you hold up to your mouth like your Bob Barker. At a close range you might be able to avoid the noise issue.

I am not sure I disagree with you but there are elements to this story that makes this feasible in theory:

• The television broadcast industry is a mess and overly complicated. It is outdated and end users are locked into deals they do not want. There is very little choice involved in terms of programming (its more a choice between the lesser of evils)
• Most televisions are not 'connected' and 'smart'
• T

he additional cables and boxes are 'unsightly' in the broadest sense of the word.

The main point being that all of the above would seem to make up one irresistible target for Apple.

Couple of points to consider -
Jobs says he cracked the 'interface'. That, a stand-alone TV does not make. Only this rumour monger said that.
I can see Siri as the interface.
Picture(pun intended) this - A simple remote like today but with a microphone and it transmits voice command to what ever device this it. This makes sense to me. NOT open mic on the box. Too much ambiant noise.
Second point - making a HDTV does not mean just go out and buy a screen. Look at all the reviews for TVs - sharpness etc, color correction ... blah blah blah. IMO - just don't think Apple would get into that. If they do, I would think from an existing brand name(Samsung... d'oh)

INSTEAD - Build Apple TV into one nice box that can control (by voice) -cable if you must, internent radio/ streaming, cloud music play lists or what ever is commanded(think start trek), mirror games from ipad etc, stream 1080p movies etc and output all this to the MONITOR and SPEAKERS. Yes very high end would be left out, but Apple tends to look for the 80%-ers.

Whos the crazy one now?(being rhetorical, don't answer that )

And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.

I understand your point but a set-top box (e.g. Apple TV) can't control the TV itself, only the signal to the TV. It would take a true Apple-built TV to integrate the two functions of signal control and TV control. This shouldn't be overlooked as a modern television is more than just a monitor with a tuner and various input ports.

"Siri, turn on the news."

"How long would you like to sleep."

"Not snooze! News!"

"Snooze news? You're not making sense."

"Turn on Channel 5."

"Whether or not you get excited by perfume has nothing to do with me."

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"

I was typing that up as an edit a few minutes ago. That could work. I can see people saying "Turn on Fox and Friends", "Find me reruns of M.A.S.H.", or more in line with Apple's strengths "Something funny like Seinfeld" where AppleTV Genius looks for shows that people that watch Seinfeld also watch (active data mining) or recommend (elected data mining).

Yeah, I don't see this panning out either. But let's consider what was said:
"a source close to an Asian component supplier claimed in September that Apple was building prototype models of its rumored high-definition television set."

First, of course this could be the usual BS, or even something Apple did deliberately to start false rumors to disguise true intents. Remember all the iPhone5 reports?

Second, if this IS true, it does not necessarily mean sets are being built for sale with an Apple brand. It's possible some prototypes have been built in order to demonstrate to manufacturers how the Apple-spec'd set works.

I still believe these TVs would be 'Made for AppleTV', rather than BE 'Apple TV's. I think AppleTV will continue to be an add-on box, and that 'Made for AppleTV' sets will contain parts that will tie them more closely with AppleTV boxes. The 'Made for' label will be an edge for manufacturers who adopt it, Apple will get whatever additional functionality it cannot get as a complete standalone, everyone wins.

I just do not see it as good strategy for Apple to wade into the cutthroat TV business. It's better strategy for Apple to make TV makers compete with each other using their consumer-established 'Made for' brand (somewhat like 'Intel Inside') and just keep making little black add-on boxes. It even gives Apple a foothold in outlets like Sears, where most TVs are bought: "They're loading up your new TV in the loading bay, Mr. Brown. Do you have the AppleTV box already, or should I add one on?"

No matter what brand/size/price the TV, Apple can sell a box for it, instead of competing with it. Remember, MOST TVs aren't bought by gotta-have-it gadget freaks or Apple fans, but by average people with other centers of interest. These aren't computers - they aren't even cell phones. It's something many people buy in the same place they buy a washing machine or dishwasher.


Well, no. This is a whole new Apple these days. The iPad is priced below roughly equivalent products. So are most Macs, feature for feature. And AT&T GIVES iPhones away with new contracts.

Being price-conscious does not necessarily mean cutting corners.


'Made for iPod' devices usually have a place to dock an iPod. These TVs could have a slot in the back for an AppleTV allowing it to access an IR receiver (or whatever) on the front of the set. Remember, they're 'Made for AppleTV'. Problem solved.

As far as new, high-tech display technologies and so on are concerned: This is exactly why Apple should not be making the entire TV. Some people WANT such displays, but some people just want a bargain TV (especially these days). No matter what you want in a display, you should have the option of an Apple-designed set controller. Let the TV manufacturers compete over 3D, new cutting-edge display technologies, display size and style, price, plasma vs. LCD/LED/projector/whatever, speaker options and so on. Let consumers choose, and then plug in an AppleTV.

LOL There are entire comedy routines just waiting to be hatched with services like Siri. Stephen Colbert already did one last week.

Random background noise is a totally different problem.

If you know what the source audio is (as an Apple HDTV would) you can subtract it from the resulting recording.

I actually think that isolating voice commands from a room where a few people are have a conversation would be harder than isolating voice commands from a single person watching a movie with the volume cranked up.

That's where things like directional microphones and face tracking come into play.

At the end of the day though you are correct. It's possible to manufacture scenarios where Siri on a TV wouldn't work.

However the same kind of problems will still exist if the iPhone was your microphone. It might be a little more reliable though.

The only fool-proof method, i think, would be to have a bunch of microphones placed around the room that your iPhone mic could tap into for some crazy multi-layered noise cancellation.

System Preference settings on your MBP. Under Security/General/"disable IR remote"

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'.

1) Considering the space, the mic in the remote could be larger and better for this sort of use.

2) Mics around the room is an interesting thought. Putting them in the speakers around the room would likely do the trick. I wonder what kind of processing that would require.

ok thanks, will give this a go.

this is a television.


No one's gonna buy a $5,000 TV anymore. That's my prediction.


Exactly. That's why Apple selling an HDTV is ludicrous.

It's basically the third oldest electronics market. It's PRETTY DANG SATURATED. Entering it isn't like entering the PMP market or smartphone market. TVs have been around a couple of years now.

Televisions should be dumb sticks. Sticks is a bad metaphor, but it serves the purpose. Sticks.

Your television is a stick. You want a bigger stick? Go get one on the cheap. You want a stick with sanded bark (AMOLED panel or whatever, once they get cheaper)? Go buy a stick with sanded bark.

You want to have two sticks, REALLY REALLY close together and then blurry (3D gimmick)? Go do that, too.

And then buy an Apple TV, plug it in, and know it will work with whatever stick you buy.

I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?

Yeah, they've been saying that.

The difference here lies in the age of the market, the mindset of what a television "is", and the fact that no one really wants to buy a $5,000 42" TV anymore.

Talking from your TV from across the room isn't the simplest thing I can imagine. All of you guys are over thinking this.

There are some major differences.

First of all, people on this type of forum we're mostly wanting to enter the smartphone market because they thought it could be a lot better and that Apple's experience and success with CE would be ideal. There were dozens upon dozens of mockups of how people envisioned the iPhone, which was named for at least a year by Apple users before the January 2007 announcement.

Second, those that didn't think Apple could succeed in the smartphone business overwhelming stated it was because the market was saturated. The argument with the TV market is that Apple can't really bring anything new to the table with a basic TV, as well as very real logistical issue with storing large TVs usually found in warehouse stores, not in a the back rooms of boutique shops.

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. Apple doesn't sell many Mac Pros yet a single Mac Pro takes up less space and makes a lot more profit than a 50" TV.

There are clearly some areas in which Apple's strengths could benefit users TV viewing, but there are so many issues at hand with cable and sat, and hard to see how Apple could bypass them or make a one-size-fits-all solution without CableCards. Look what happened with GoogleTV. Look how long it took for Apple to create an iPhone that connected to more than the highly standardized GSM/UMTS network.

If Apple was able to absolutely control every network in the world then an Apple tv would work without question.

I don't want to be restricted to watching certain shows each week... 20 episodes over 6 months. I want to watch "some" things continuously until conclusion over a period of 2 - 3 weeks. Anyone who could arrange that would have my vote... even if I had to buy their tv (but not if it was $5000 )

Until then...
____________________

"Siri, which stock should I buy?"

"Are you stupid?"