or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple television rumored to come in 3 sizes, including 32" and 55"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple television rumored to come in 3 sizes, including 32" and 55" - Page 3

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post

I just read about the Xbox update coming out on Dec 6 and I don't see how an Apple TV could beat this.

Better UI and UE. That, combines with a willingness to buy a REV 1 product and to believe promises of future capability upgrades.

Using a console as a super duper access portal is a kludge to start with.
post #82 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

wondering if Tim Cook can create the reality distortion field and convince us once again that Apple has just created another 4-year-old technology. multi-touch, siri, et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvuwgA2Gbys

You have triggered every keyword to indicate you are trolling but I'll ask anyway. What doe the timeframe between when a tech was first demoed in some way and when a consumer product gets a workable, advance version of that tech have to do with anything?

Siri in the 4S is worlds above the standalone app, which is worlds above what it was before the Nuance addition, and world above when it was a government project. I don't get why Siri in the 4S is somehow not increasing the UX in way that has never been before for that technology simply because it wasn't all invented by Apple in the last week.

As for your video, that is not a good demo. It's slow to respond and takes more effort than hitting a button. Also, have you every tried to use CoverFlow for everything iTunes/iPod. It has some nifty visual features and is great if the image of an album is all you know, but it's not more user friendly option for accessing data quickly and easily. I can't imagine a TV show would work with this.

BTW, sensors that recognize human movements have been around a lot longer than 4 years, much less the janky 2009 demo shown in the link. And OLED…the 1950s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

And ur a global moderator? Ugh!

He's a Mod, not an Admin for the forum. I don't expect any mod to adjust their posting style simply because of his new designation, but the flip side of that coin is that you can openly disagree with him without fear of getting banned.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #83 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay, I'll pick on you. You're the third person I've seen mention this nonsense, and it's getting to be bothersome.

What does my being a moderator have to do with anything?

Do you think that you should be allowed to present your guesses as facts? Do you think that that's an appropriate way to present your opinions (because until Apple says so, that's all they are)?

If so, become a tech analyst. Otherwise people are going to criticize you for it, and you'll have to live with that.

Actually, people will criticize you MORE if you become an analyst because they'll assume you're always wrong. Which is really just being stereotypical and unfair to analysts, but they certainly DO seem to fit that stereotype as though it's their job to do so

Tell the people your duties here on the AI forum. They might get off your back and be grateful for your selfless assistance as a member.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #84 of 108
After reading many of these posts, I better understand why Jobs did not believe in focus groups.
post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

After reading many of these posts, I better understand why Jobs did not believe in focus groups.

The first iPhone would've had a physical keyboard and 3G.

And people would be incredulous as to why it was so terrible

"But they gave us everything we asked for!" they said
post #86 of 108
Exciting... looking forward to some more detailed info and specs. Hoping for the best when they launch it, truly hope it's revolutionary especially since Steve set the guidance. And love that the TV makers are already nervous and trying to guess and make their best guess 'answer' TVs first.
post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I don't think you understood my post at all, so I must not have been sufficiently clear. I'll try harder.

Apple's ultimate goal should be to destroy the existing system completely. Once that happens, "watching TV" should mean that there is no bluray player or cable box. All paid content would come to a TV in the same way that it comes to an iPad -- through the iTunes/App store, and that happens over 802.lln connected to the Internet (that's the enforced standard). (unpaid content can stream over the local wi-fi from your Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc)

The problem is in getting from here to there. And for that, there needs to be a connection to the existing world. I'm proposing that connection would be a wireless link from the Apple TV to an Apple-branded piece of hardware that would connect to the existing rat's nest of receiver, etc. Because that wireless link is between two apple devices, there is no need for standards enforcement -- it can be whatever wireless technology apple chooses. That Apple-branded piece of hardware (as I said -- you can think of it as being analogous to an airport express) would provide the physical connectivity (hdmi, optical audio) that is needed to relate to the existing hardware mess we all have to live with. This would allow us to shed those legacy devices gradually rather than all at once. This is essential, because not all content will be available through the iTunes/AppStore model from day 1, and people won't want to give up that content. So, practical example -- you connect your cable box to the AirportExpress and the AirportExpress wireless streams the video to the AppleTV. You still have to control the cable box using the remote.

But by keeping the rat's nest at a wireless arm's distance from the AppleTV, the AppleTV itself is uncorrupted. When you are finally able to shed that last piece of legacy equipment, the AppleTV you're left with will be the AppleTV you always wanted -- no extra cables, super simple -- just an invisible antenna that used to communicate with the AirportExpress-like device that provided the physical link to the rat's nest.

I think something like this is essential... the AppleTV has to be both capable of eventually totally replacing the current system while at the same time coexisting with the current system.

Your rats-nest connection box with a wireless link to the TV has already been done by Panasonic. Several years ago:

Quote:
The best feature to flaunt about Panasonic TC-P54Z1 Widescreen Plasma Display is the Wireless connectivity of the telly. Being a DLNA certified screen, this television offers extensive network capabilities and connectivity options. This is one of the handful televisions that can offer uncompressed Full HD 1080p wireless transmission. A separate media receiver is issued along with the display in which the processing unit is installed. All you have to do is to connect the devices to the HD media receiver, and further transmission can be done to the display without any messy wires.



The nice thing about these is that the display can be wall mounted with only the need to provide a power connection to it. Everything else connects to the box which obviously can be concealed.

As is so often the problem with AI, this discussion is rather too USA centric. There are numerous TV systems in use world wide and one box won't suit all. Panasonics idea is rather cool and elegant. If the actual tuner section within the box were an easy to swap module, that would make a lot of sense.

Here in Europe, there is quite a mish-mash of delivery systems. Fibre, cable, OTA and Satellite being the main ones, with the latter being very big. Their are also numerous flavours of OTA DT systems

My current TV is a Panasonic 50" Plasma with an integrated HD Satellite receiver via which I can view all the FTA UK based Satellite channels. It's Mpeg4 decoder also lets me receive the Irish terrestrial digital channels.

What could Apple offer me to 'improve' things. Not much that I can think of. The UK Satellite Freeview system already includes an integrated all channel, on-screen, Program guide.

People who think DSL broadband is good enough, or affordable enough to provide HD TV content must already have good connections at a cheap rate. A lot of Europe doesn't and wont for some time.

The only way I can see Apple changing the game world-wide is with a fleet of their own Satellites linking to something like the Panasonic system above with a local modular Tuner, with the resulting interface providing the user with a single screen program guide unifying all content available from all sources connected to the box; from whats coming from the satellite, whats in the DVD player, what's on the local DT channels to what downloaded content is available on the iMac or media server.

Apple having their own fleet of HD broadcast satellites would be politically interesting.

Siri doesn't attract me. I do not want to talk to a remote.
post #88 of 108
It feels really unlikely Apple would jump into the actual TV market. There is no way for Apple to beat the rest of the field in display quality, tuner quality and price. Then there's the problem that TVs have no "right" size as much as desktop displays have, and shipping TVs - especially multiple models - is a huge logistics volume challenge.

I wonder to what extent they could control an existing TV from an external AppleTV box via HDMI-CEC. Maybe they could push to expand that standard. And they could find partners on the TV side whose TVs get certified as "AppleTV compatible"?
post #89 of 108
From what I've seen and read the two most popular sizes around the world are 32" and 40" so I would expect them to go with that. Whatever the size I just hope they ditch the horrid black band around the screen and go with an edge to edge display.

Edit: I think the rumour is that Sharp will be supplying the screens for any Apple TV. I just had a look on their website and their own smart TVs go up to 80".
post #90 of 108
i think people will be like they were towards the iPad when they first saw it, basically didn't think much of it and steve felt hurt at first people didn't get it, it wasn't and till they started using and playing with it that they got it and it went C4 BOOOOOM!

Siri will be in it, with more, the other point needs addressing is competitive pricing and still make money and not lose money in this area like the other companies, if any one can do it its Apple....


In Apple We Trust!!!!
post #91 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

From what I've seen and read the two most popular sizes around the world are 32" and 40" so I would expect them to go with that. Whatever the size I just hope they ditch the horrid black band around the screen and go with an edge to edge display.

Edit: I think the rumour is that Sharp will be supplying the screens for any Apple TV. I just had a look on their website and their own smart TVs go up to 80".

I was just looking at a Sharp 80 the other day. Everything else just looks so small now!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #92 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's anticipated high-end 55-inch model is expected to compete with "smart TVs" from established television makers like Samsung and LG. Those companies' next-generation TV sets are expected to have new features like faster processors, a "combination of OLED display," and "Super HD" from LG, the report said.

Well, As much as I'd like to see but hate to see it, "Super HD", or Ultra HD (i.e. 33.5 megapixel) as described in Wikipedia is still and experimental technology and I doubt we're going to see this any time soon. Heck, Apple can't even figure out how to stream 1080p efficiently enough to even consider Beta testing, so I think this article is full of crap.

I hate these articles. They just build a false sense of hope, so when the actual Apple HDTV comes out, the media can bash apple for not delivering what the rumors suggest.

Seriously? A retina display for your TV? is this really necessary? And I suppose all the Movie company's are doing this because Blu-ray wasn't as successful as their internal predictions suggest? And then they're going to try and Stream this? You're joking right?

Someone please give me a logical answer to why we need Siri in the TV? They are really going to have to do something about background noise if they want this to be successful. The iPhone4S noise cancelling isn't good enough as it is. And what about the hearing impaired, and other accessibility concerns?
post #93 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Well, As much as I'd like to see but hate to see it, "Super HD", or Ultra HD (i.e. 33.5 megapixel) as described in Wikipedia is still and experimental technology and I doubt we're going to see this any time soon. Heck, Apple can't even figure out how to stream 1080p efficiently enough to even consider Beta testing, so I think this article is full of crap.

I hate these articles. They just build a false sense of hope, so when the actual Apple HDTV comes out, the media can bash apple for not delivering what the rumors suggest.

Seriously? A retina display for your TV? is this really necessary? And I suppose all the Movie company's are doing this because Blu-ray wasn't as successful as their internal predictions suggest? And then they're going to try and Stream this? You're joking right?

Someone please give me a logical answer to why we need Siri in the TV? They are really going to have to do something about background noise if they want this to be successful. The iPhone4S noise cancelling isn't good enough as it is. And what about the hearing impaired, and other accessibility concerns?

This is a rumor site you know
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #94 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I was just looking at a Sharp 80 the other day. Everything else just looks so small now!

Yes, especially the prices, given that Sharp costs $5500 (£3500)

If Samsung come through with the rumoured 55" OLED TV, I think I would rather that than the Sharp, if the prices were comparable.
post #95 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Bleck... I just want to see ghetto siri appear in the app store .

Siri WAS in the app store and [once again] i'm VERY upset that they ended all of it's functionality as soon as the 4S was released. i used it almost every day for close to a year on my iPhone 4.
post #96 of 108
TV's problem is not with the TV hardware itself. Apple can create the best interface to a TV this side of the universe, but if we still gets programming from cable and satellite providers, we'll have to deal with their box and their interface.

If Apple bypass those providers, then it's really a streaming service. So it's not fundamentally different from what AppleTV provides today, but maybe in a much better way.
post #97 of 108
I'm a couple of years past due for a new living room HDTV. I'll really be interested in this if it either:

1. There is a content package available that will give me access to all of the current content that I watch on Comcast, including live news and sports, or

2. Comcast says it will make all of its features accessible on it without a cable box.

I think the latter is much MUCH more likely, but I'm not anti-Comcast as much as wanting a smooth user experience with as much cable (and frankly Blue-ray) integration as possible.

I don't want to use one remote to pick the source, another to choose channels, and a third to operate the Blu-ray. I don't want a third-party universal remote that figures out all the handshakes if you give it the right codes. I want a remote that is designed to operate everything and a TV/cable/Blu-ray device that is designed to work as a unified device.
post #98 of 108
leave the integrated electronics out of it... period. I usually keep a TV for 5 or more years. I like the idea of the Apple TV as it is, but make it a plug in card that goes into the back of the TV. Hell, make it so it works with other brands just like the apple TV does now. Don't put the processor in the TV. But... that is the way it will most likely happen. By the end of 2012 there shouldn't be anything worth watching on TV at all. ha!
post #99 of 108
You decide (and note the dates on these old emails I sent to my buddy)...


From: Derrick Roberts
Date: September 8, 2010 5:17:06 PM EDT
To: Charles Shorb
Subject: Re: Inching closer...


I think Apple's new NC-based datacenter will end up getting us most of the rest of the way to where I was headed over 2 years ago (see below).

Now...on to the next big thing. Think about "Faces" in iPhoto....and "FaceTime"....and the new AppleTV which can retrieve and stream content....

I think we will soon hear about the ability to make/take FaceTime calls from the family room tv. A call comes into your iPhone...it's Uncle Clark and he wants to do FaceTime. With the press of a button, the call (already passing through your wi-fi network) is shifted over to the AppleTV and blammo...Uncle Clark's mug is on the widescreen LCD tv (thanks to the "iMicroCam"...part microphone...part camera...that sits on top of your TV and captures the sights and sounds of the call). Think about a couple of aspects/options...perhaps the iMicroCam is actually just a dock of some sort that you plop your iPhone into. The call is already underway on your phone but that dock is connected to your AppleTV to direct the signal through to the media room's big screen. Maybe the dock or the stand-alone camera/microphone can swivel and track you and can zoom out if/when it realizes that you are in the recliner, the wife is on the loveseat and Jr. is running all over the field of view. But if you start talking and nobody else's voice/face is taking part in your side of the call, maybe it zooms in a bit. As for Uncle Clark, the system recognizes his Face and displays an opaque side bar of photo albums, documents, emails, etc. that have been associated with his face and/or contact record. I mentioned the possibility of a "dock" but you can actually scratch that....the standalone camera/mic hardware is better for a couple of reasons....1) it's new hardware and that means new revenue for Apple (or 3rd party vendors) and 2) you don't NEED an iPhone to make this happen given Apple's open-source approach to FaceTime. You can be sitting in the living room watching a movie that you're streaming through your Apple TV from Netflix and here comes an overlay telling you that Uncle Clark wants to connect with you. If you accept the call, your streaming content pauses and the call becomes the focus.

Like it?

D




On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Derrick Roberts wrote:

I'd still like to know when we can reach a point where some combination of compression and streaming rates will enable us to get C.O.D. (Content On Demand).
The mothership (Apple perhaps) hosts the content (which they already do)
They manage the rights/licensing (which they also currently do through their "authorize up to 5 machines" program)
They serve up content as it's requested (already kinda doing this with Apple Movie Rentals, right? What I don't know is what physically happens to a piece of content when the rental expires. Does it automatically get removed from your hardware? Or is it still there but in an expired and unplayable state? In either case, I could see an interface where you'd have the option to manage local retention periods. The point is, you don't need a 2TB iPod, iPhone, AppleTV, AppleDVR or whatever in order to have easy access to all of your content. You authorize your compatible devices (PC, Mac, the above named devices, etc.) and any one (or more) of them can fetch the content (owned, rented, subscribed, personal, etc.) On Demand.
Any content obtained from the iTunes store (music, video, podcasts, audiobooks, iPod games, iPhone apps, etc) can/will be hosted on and served from Apple's servers free of charge.
Any content obtained by any other method (ripped a CD that I own, pics off my digital camera, home movies, files and documents I've created, etc.) could be hosted on and served from Apple's servers based on some pricing scheme that is yet to-be-determined.
post #100 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

To make a TV as glossy as an iMac or MacBook Pro would be crazy. Imagine watching a dark movie with all that gloss - brutal. You'd have to have a completely black room.

That's true for most HDTVs. They all have glossy screens, no?

And as for the report claiming that LG is releasing 2012 OLED sets in large sizes, I find that very hard to believe unless it's super-high end or a concept model. Hardly anyone has released any OLED as yet except for Sony's 11" model from a few years ago. 2012 is not suddenly going to give us revolutionary changes in size/cost.

LG sets are not especially highly rated. Those honors go to the former Pioneer Kuro line, and the high end models of Sony, Panasonic (Plasma), Sharp Elite and an occassional Samsung.
post #101 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

What "new dimensions" do you think it will bring to gaming? Apple have traditionally been very conservative in this area. I think it would quickly devolve into 99c apps like angry birds you can play during ad breaks.

Just brain storming here. If the TV had a camera, maybe you could be in the game. Hard to imagine what 3rd party developers could come up with with the right hardware and software.
post #102 of 108
The tv channel is the album, the show the single. Apple killed the album with iTMS... A la carte TV?
post #103 of 108
The success of Apple entering the TV/lounge-room market has nothing to do with what the hardware looks like, how you use it, or whether it has a glorified feature list. Apple customers already expect so see cool-ade exuding from any new product released.

Apple have to work and negotiate with the industry to achieve a content delivery system that is simple and easier to use than the current method, which is the already streamlined, optimized and straightforward torrent environment available now.

I believe it has everything to do with who Apple can get onboard to use the device for content distribution. If this happens and the contracts are signed, make way for the next wave of innovative change where Apple's competitors will scurry off and attempt to mimic the hardware thinking this is the competing solution.
post #104 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangles View Post

...

I believe it has everything to do with who Apple can get onboard to use the device for content distribution. If this happens and the contracts are signed, make way for the next wave of innovative change where Apple's competitors will scurry off and attempt to mimic the hardware thinking this is the competing solution.

xsu had it correct in Post #92. OTOH, you appear to be fixated on the notion that Apple needs to become some sort of super monopoly in content streaming. Look, there lots of content deliverers out there. There is Apple's own iTunes Music Store. There are also Vudu, Netflix, BlockBuster, Pandora, and many more. More importantly, there are ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, HBO, CNN, Fuel, History, SyFy, BounceTV, and hundreds of others. The thing that you don't seem to grasp is that we are talking about a television set. This is the device that we use to watch the Super Bowl, the evening news, Dancing with the Stars, and live coverage of local disasters. It is also the display for our video games, Blu-ray players, and videos of our trip to Disney World.

Do you honestly believe that Apple will go to market with a TV set that requires its owners to sacrifice their X boxes and PS3s? Will Apple require is new customers to mothball their Blu-ray players? What can possibly be so great about the rumored Apple HDTV that its owners will sacrifice their satellite dish before they make their first payment to Direct TV?

I have no inside information, but I just don't see any of this happening. Content delivery is an issue, but it is by no means the biggest issue with TV today. From where this owner sits, there are two major issues:
  1. Management of 1000+ channels of available news/entertainment in the living room/den
  2. The plethora of remote controls required to operate each content source connected to the TV
Issue No. 2 is also a management issue. That being the case, it seems that all of the issues facing the modern TV set owner are come back to some kind of management--management of content, management of hardware.

I live in the USA where all television sets are legally required to have an integrated ATSC digital tuner for terrestrial digital broadcasts. I understand that owners elsewhere have more options such as integrated FTA satellite receivers. Wherever you live, the problem gets back to management.

It is silly to proffer as a solution to the management problem that Apple eliminate options. This does not mean that Apple most support absolutely everything. Clearly not. For example, an Apple HDTV might forego S-video or composite video. However, it clearly needs HDMI, component video, and optical audio ports.

The cable providers in the USA have a Federal mandate to support CableCard-like functionality. Perhaps, Apple can build CableCard into its sets. Sony and Samsung already use embedded versions of Linux in their TV sets. Apple's killer potential is iOS. An Apple dumb TV would still run iOS behind the screen. However, an Apple smart TV would inherit the thousands of apps already available for the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch. The remote control could also be iOS-based--or you could use your iPhone/iPad/iPod touch as the remote. This would give the remote control the ability provide effectively perfect emulation of the remote control for every component in your entertainment system. It also has the potential to integrate the emulated remotes for each device into a rational and logically consistent system.
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmsa107 View Post

This is exciting....I'm expecting some jaw-dropping features, after all this is apple!

I'm expecting not a TV. After all, this is Apple.

Why the month-old thread necro when we have dozens of more recent threads on the subject?
post #106 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

And so starts the crux of the problem. TV's are furniture.
My installation requires a 37". So no go for me. (If true, the middle size will probably be 42")
If they did make the size I need, what is the trim? Black? Silver? White? All of these mean no sale to some possibly sizable segment.

Your installation is not static, it requires nothing.
Quote:
Frankly I'll only be upset if they ONLY go the TV route and don't offer the same functionality via a box, because that's the only product I'll be interested in buying.

So why bother posting? I mean really I have no interest in a Playstation but I don't go crapping on forums for Playstations. Unless it is a social menace why concern yourself with what others might desire?

There are a couple of realities here. This is a new market for Apple thus they can't hit every possible size no matter how good they are. Look at how long it took them to get to 2 different AIR sizes. Second it is impossible to make the ridged happy.
post #107 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Look, there lots of content deliverers out there. There is Apple's own iTunes Music Store. There are also Vudu, Netflix, BlockBuster, Pandora, and many more. More importantly, there are ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, HBO, CNN, Fuel, History, SyFy, BounceTV, and hundreds of others.

All of which can be serviced by a better black box. No need for an actual Apple TV

Quote:
The thing that you don't seem to grasp is that we are talking about a television set. This is the device that we use to watch the Super Bowl, the evening news, Dancing with the Stars, and live coverage of local disasters. It is also the display for our video games, Blu-ray players, and videos of our trip to Disney World.

Which could be serviced by Apple making a better/larger Cinema Display that also has HDMI inputs, optical audio i/o etc.

And by making a better dumb screen they open up their potential market to more than just folks looking for a new TV and perhaps avoid some of the licensing concerns that would come with putting in cable etc antennas.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

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

All of which can be serviced by a better black box. No need for an actual Apple TV

The device that Apple developed to "lick TV" is an TV with increased functionality? Surely, you jest. Black boxes are part of the problem, not the solution. In response to consumer opposition to black boxes, the U. S. Federal Government gave the cable providers a mandate to cooperate with TV set manufacturers to develop a solution that did not require a box to tune scrambling digital channels. Their solution is CableCard. There is zero consumer pressure for another black box. However, what you are talking about is not another black box, just the next version of TV. There may be a new version of the TV, but clearly that is not what we are waiting for and it is not what Steve Jobs was talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Which could be serviced by Apple making a better/larger Cinema Display that also has HDMI inputs, optical audio i/o etc.

And by making a better dumb screen they open up their potential market to more than just folks looking for a new TV and perhaps avoid some of the licensing concerns that would come with putting in cable etc antennas.

Um-m-m-m. no. You must be having a bad day. I understand that you are probably serious, so please excuse me if I laugh. But an Apple Cinema Display? A family of monitors that Apple is abandoning in favor the the Apple Thunderbolt display? With 44.44% of the pixels of an Apple Thunderbolt Display? Really?

You must have forgotten that Apple does not make its own panels. It buys them from Asian manufacturers. Rumors have it buying panels for its new HDTV from Sharp. Leave aside the fact that consumer TV monitors sold in the USA are required by Federal law to have integrated ATSC over-the-air digital free TV tuners. Reviving a fewer pixel version of the Apple Cinema Display line is not among Apple's plan to "lick TV."

Look. Take a nap and rethink this when you are rested.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple television rumored to come in 3 sizes, including 32" and 55"