or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple suppliers will reportedly begin preparations for Apple television in Q1 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple suppliers will reportedly begin preparations for Apple television in Q1 2012 - Page 2

post #41 of 84
Well this latest rumor is the worst of all so far. I have absolutely no need for a TV less than 40 ". At the beginning of this year I was encouraged to think the way we watch TV was really begining it's transformation. As I watched Netflix get beat up and knocked down I have become less convinced that the content providers, are even remotely interested or ready in changing the business model. Just look at HBO To Go and you can see the Comcast's of the world are still running the show. It is my guess that when we see true ala cart programming from a single interface, be it Apple or whomever, then you can talk to me about an Apple TV. Until then I just don't really care to pay for a premium cost TV for the same old experience.
post #42 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I find it hard to believe that this will happen this soon.

What is especially suspicious is the size of the panels reported. a 32" flat-screentelevision is considered "small" or "cheap" nowadays.

Apple is going to enter the TV market at the very bottom end?
Since when have they ever done this?

Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.

They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.


when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #43 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

if you still have to use the box below for most of your TV watching... what's the point?


It's the future and Apple is ahead of the curve. The days of those hideous boxes are going away. It hasn't happened yet, but the day is coming. Already, we're seeing the beginning of the end for the domination of cable. Cable cancellations are at an all time high as people are beginning to realize they can get content elsewhere. Sometimes better content.

I bought an Apple TV box a year ago. I watch more TV now than I did a year ago, but I watch cable only 1/4 as often as I used to. In fact, the only thing I watch on cable now is football.
post #44 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

It seems contrary to Apple's preferred one-system-fits-all principle, which has served them so well in simplifying their product lines. The device would need different tuners for each region. Even these things change over time such as the recent switches in some countries from analogue to digital terrestrial broadcasts, requiring ugly external boxes.

So, I too am wondering what this could actually look like.


not true

there are slightly different versions of iOS for different devices, carriers, and regions
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

no it's not

you can squeeze more than enough pixels into that size

You can squeeze plenty of pixels into a 3.5" iPhone too. That doesn't mean that I'd like to watch tv on it.

A tv is a home theatre, your own private cinema, and nobody wants a tiny screen, unless they are poor or they live in a 2' x 3' cardboard box.

For Apple to only release a 37" tv max, is leaving a lot of customers out of the picture, as many people would not even consider such a tiny tv.
post #46 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post



Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.

They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.

Top quality 4" cellphones (the new midrange) can be had for prices cheaper than the iPhone. Are you saying that the iPhone should be at least 4.25" with built-in 4G?

Since when has Apple needed to offer stuff like big screens or the latest tech? They do VERY well selling midrange hardware for premium prices.

The integration of the hardware and the software, combined with the Apple ecosystem is compelling enough to attract lots of profits.
post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What a funny thing to say considering "over the air" broadcasting had it's heyday in the 1950's and 60's and is all but gone today.

Do you think Apple's new TV set should have rabbit ears?

I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

With a whole new set of state of the art ports and cables that connect to nothing that people already own !

Actually, in this case not.

The new "ports" on the display will likely all be wireless connections (Bluetooth 4.0, Airstream/WiFi, etc.) except for the power cord, and the Apple TV box that the display connects to (wirelessly) will almost certainly use HDMI ports for input from your cable box, etc.

Apple formerly invented new ports and connectors, but only when they perceived a need (not, as you imply, solely to make money). But they are moving more and more to wireless technologies wherever they can. I expect the next generation of MacBooks will also use wireless connections for external displays, so that your new Apple TV can also function as a display for your laptop.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #49 of 84
I am all for an Apple branded TV. I, however, think if these are the only sizes, it will be a flop. Apple needs to at least break the 40 " mark.
post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

For Apple to only release a 37" tv max, is leaving a lot of customers out of the picture, as many people would not even consider such a tiny tv.

I agree.
post #51 of 84
What makes this special is the win-win for all parties concerned ... Cept for the box makers.

IOS is secret sauce and the cable providers have almost universally flocked to it.

I have Cablevision at the moment and they have an incredable app for watching just about anything and everything I have access to. I run the app on my iPad on my wires iPad and it even runs on our iPhones and iPod touches. That's a ton of places where we can continue to see the content we're paying for all without the need of a silly and poky slow SA box.

Would they KILL to have it work rolled out on the AppleTV 2? Heck yea! Could you imagine not having to invest in warehouses full of boxes that all cost quite a fair bit more than the $99 AppleTV2 does.... And the IOS app 'just works'.

CableVision
TimeWarner
DiSH or DirecTV
Comcast and FiOS are both working on something similar I think...

They are all in line doing similar things... All be it I think CableVision has had the most success in rolling out just about ALL the channels without too much legal wrangles.. Stuff stored on your PVR and perhaps ON-DEMAND content (PPV too?) might not be working but those are ALL legal objections and not technical ones.

Oh yea...

HBO, Cinemax and perhaps a few more pay channels are also already lined up with IOS offerings of their own.

MBA, NHL, NFL and I'm sure all the other sports are getting their 'apps' ready too.

Could you imagine if Apple made deals with the cable providers ... no not just them but some CONTENT providers too... tho due to contracts with cable companies they might be a little slow going.

Buy an AppleTV and now pick ANY PROVIDER YOU WANT! It won't matter if they 'service your area' or not or are 'blocked by trees' or have a bad line of sight to some satellite. You like their channel lineup they you can click a button and sign up and are now able to access the channels you pay for.

The real fun will kick in when all those carriers are TRULY in competition with each other. Sure, in some RARE places 2 or 3 providers might have to duke it out... However in most of America you have 1 cable choice (and satellite) and thats it.

The Satellite companies are really looking at this as a win... Their equipment is VERY expensive and quite fragile to the elements. 2 things that keep many people away from the service. Imagine if they had a way to sell to EVERYONE in the USA simply by making a deal with Apple to act as their gateway. They could take back some of that EVERY expensive satellite space they are now using to broadcast locals and that alone would be money in the bank for them.

Yea I'm rambling now... but it does make the mind race when you think of the possibilities.

As for the reason WHY cablevision and the others will embrace this is quite simple.. If the satellite companies make the move and then perhaps FiOS ... then everyone will be forced to play or simply give up on that enormous influx of new potential customers... All without having to make special deals with state, local and township polititions who are all quite happy to bury them in as much red tape as it takes to make them go away. All because the incumbent provider already made a sweatheart deal years before.

This is what Steve said when he was quoted as saying we cracked it... I'm almost sure of it.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #52 of 84
maybe not exactly like this but i see it happening. the problem now is the content owners are licensing packages of content. Disney says you have to license ESPN to get the Disney Channel. something like this will put the value back into the network operators and content will be the commodity and not the network
post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)

Because bigger is always better? Do you prefer Imax movies or the regular screen ones?

I'm just assuming the Digitimes report here is wrong. I'm very interested in what Apple comes out with and I have high hopes for it. If they come out with a 32" they may as well not even bother. The entry level one needs to be 42". 55" seems to be the most popular size at the moment, and is at the sweet spot of the price/size curve (most bang for the buck).
post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.

I personally don't know anyone who uses their TV tuner. If the Emergency Alert System were sent only over the air, it would be useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

Well this latest rumor is the worst of all so far. I have absolutely no need for a TV less than 40 ".

That part of the rumor is clearly wrong. Three sizes and two of them are under 40"? Unlikely. I could possibly see 32", 45", and 54" Or maybe 40", 55", and 70". Or any other combination. But no way would there be only 32, 37 and one more size.

That's not to say that there's no need for small TVs. We just bought my mother a 37" TV - and it's perfect for her.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

These sizes are way too small. It will be a disaster. They should consider 46", 55", and 65", at a minimum.

However, I am quite confident that Apple is not stepping into this business without a lot of research.

Agreed. No one is going to replace their 40"+ tv with a smaller Apple Tv. I think these rumors are just that.....rumors.
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

You are describing granddads TV, NOT the TV of the future.

I am describing TV as is known today. People buy things to use them straight away, and not in some hazy, undefined futuristic world of your own
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

Something all tvs in my house are able to do (!)

Exactly! Your existing TV can already do all sorts of things.

So why not buy a $99 Apple TV and use the TV you already have?
post #58 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You just used a strawman argument on YOURSELF. Hilarious. Apple is not going to release something like that.

What strawman argument?

It sounds like Apple will be making a monitor... and people are already using some sort of cable box or DVR.
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I personally don't know anyone who uses their TV tuner.

So what? Shall we just reallocate the TV spectrum then since you don't use it?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


I am among the million of people that are slowly getting rid of cable all together. Apple does not target the 95% of the market but the 5% that does not fit in the "prescribed" group. They offer a premium product with a kick a$$ experience. But don't expect the same experience as the:

Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.

But aren't you able to do that already with a $99 Apple TV box?

I'm wondering why you need to buy a whole new TV in order to watch iTunes content...

I'm not sure there are even 5% of people who are cord cutters and Apple fans.
post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Supply chain insiders claimed that Apple would initially release 32- and 37-inch versions of the so-called "iTV." [/c]

The ONLY way this would make sense is if Apple is planning on selling a modular "videowall" system:

four displays at 32" = one at 64"
nine displays at 32" = one at 96" (8'!) Finally my desktop will be big enough!

32" LCD prices (from the OEM) are headed for below $100, while 64" LCD prices remain well over $1000 (~$3000 retail). If Apple has developed a bezel-less (or mini-bezel) display, and the software to automatically dock multiple displays, we could see 10+ megapixel displays.

BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.

The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.

That's a matter of opinion. I think that kids are frivolous. I'd much rather have a huge tv.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarges View Post

well, all tv set manufacturers manage just fine with the problem, but that's not the point, what we see and read is lazy, sloppy reporting from journalists and analysts. If you call it a TV it must have a tuner, otherwise is not. It should be made clear from the outset so no to create false expectation from consumers that lead to disappointment once the product is launched. It has nothing to do with Apple, they haven't said a thing about it, but all to do with people reporting the rumours.

It is possible to call it something other than a TV, thereby negating the requirement that it receive ATSC signals in the US. It would just be a monitor with capability to show internet programming.
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.

I think you are a little out of touch with the disposable income in this country. It is the privilege of the 1% and the old codgers. I fall in the latter category with a 50" DLP and enough disposable income to buy a 55" Apple Entertainment Device (at age 72).
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What a funny thing to say considering "over the air" broadcasting had it's heyday in the 1950's and 60's and is all but gone today.

Do you think Apple's new TV set should have rabbit ears?

I still view most of my programming over the air or free to air. Netflix fills in the gaps. And it is free, except for the $9 Netflix bill. And the quality is better than anything available on cable or satellite.

This is FTA.


This is OTA.


If you have an antenna or rabbit ears, it is not difficult to view OTA on a monitor. Those who have the capability should be able to use it.
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.


My point was the physical difficulty - a small person would never want to try to install (or relocate) a larger (64"? 96"?) display alone, whereas with a modular display they could.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by efithian@mac.com View Post

I fall in the latter category with a 50" DLP and enough disposable income to buy a 55" Apple Entertainment Device (at age 72).

Apple Entertainment Device? AED? Or Automatic External Defibrillator?

Well, you are 72

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So what? Shall we just reallocate the TV spectrum then since you don't use it?

No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?

What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.

Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post

Has it occurred to anyone that Apple can deliver a major blow to Samsung by outcompeting it on its own turf?

lol

/thread

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?

What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.

Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.

I'm fine with that I just don't think they can legally call it a TV unless it has a tuner.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 84
I'm sure that it will be a marabous product but I'm also sure that it will be priced way beyond what most people can afford, think Mac Pro Tower & you'll see where I'm coming from.
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancelot9201 View Post

I'm sure that it will be a marabous product but I'm also sure that it will be priced way beyond what most people can afford, think Mac Pro Tower & you'll see where I'm coming from.

That's a nonsensical comparison. The Mac Pro is not nor has it ever been designed for "most people".

There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That's a matter of opinion. I think that kids are frivolous. I'd much rather have a huge tv.

LOL. And I agree.
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

- no tuner support, iptv support
.

fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.

and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

The ONLY way this would make sense is if Apple is planning on selling a modular "videowall" system:

four displays at 32" = one at 64"
nine displays at 32" = one at 96" (8'!) Finally my desktop will be big enough!

32" LCD prices (from the OEM) are headed for below $100, while 64" LCD prices remain well over $1000 (~$3000 retail). If Apple has developed a bezel-less (or mini-bezel) display, and the software to automatically dock multiple displays, we could see 10+ megapixel displays.

BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.

That has already been done numerous times with computer displays for trade shows and other things. Bezels and the need to match uniformity are things that can make it unappealing. Displays and televisions do not match one another even if they are the same brand/model/etc. This includes basically every display Apple has put out in the past. Some other manufacturers have complex cross profiling systems and panel blocking algorithms meant to correct for this via internal processing. Another issue is the bezel. Then there's assembly with all of the brackets. Somehow I can't see display tiling catching on in a consumer setting, especially with the present weight of televisions.

Also FWIW I've seen 40" plasmas hung for years. Obviously they're not using drywall anchors and cheap toggle bolts, but it can be done.
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.

what people call the Apple Tax is in fact the "design" price. The ultra book segment VS the MBA proves it. When the PC market has to come up with a design (as oppose to a bunch of stats in a plastic box) they sell at the same prices has Apple.
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.

and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.

This is correct. In the US, virtually every TV set is required to include an integrated ATSC tuner by Federal law. What also seems lost on most posters here is that cable and satellite providers are losing subscribers. This is precipitated by two conditions:
  1. Tough economic times have motivated viewers to reevaluate the value received for their entertainment dollars spent on pay TV.
  2. The number of free viewing options available via over-the-air (OTA) multicasting satisfies the television viewing needs of many viewers.
There are today websites dedicated to the disconnect movement. TV antennas, both manufactured and homemade, are popular products and issues for discussion.

I will repeat here what I have posted before. The issue with TV is not lack of content. There are cable systems that have more than 3000 numbered channels. Even for viewers who have only OTA television may receive more than 50 subchannels. I have no gotten into things like Blu-ray players, game consoles, and IPTV. The issue with TV is management of the content. Our current content management paradigm is an evolution of a paradigm that was developed at a time when many homes received only three channels. If Apple returns to the TV set business with a family of sets that makes it as easy to manage 50-3000 channels as it used to be to manage 3 channels, then it will be a huge success.
post #79 of 84
It will be controllable by Siri or by hand gestures with a Kinect-like interface.

just my two cents.

*i'm betting... (in subject line)
post #80 of 84
I figure I'm saving huge bucks by doing so as cable is a huge rip off especially if you don't spend a lot of time in front of the tube. Not that this is a virtue as I spend time in front of my iPad instead!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.

It does save one a huge amount of money. Basic cable is enough everry month to cover the cost of seeing a movie in a real theater. Note the screen in the theater is many times larger than any TV I'd be willing to buy.
Quote:
But aren't you able to do that already with a $99 Apple TV box?

I'm wondering why you need to buy a whole new TV in order to watch iTunes content...

I'm not sure there are even 5% of people who are cord cutters and Apple fans.

You would be surprised. An iPad with 3G can go a long way to covering ones communications needs. Infact I'm doing so well with my iPad I could see giving up my iPhone for a cheaply pay as you go phone. It is all about controlling cost while maximizing your communications capacity.

If I need bulk access to the Internet I can always grab the laptop and slip into a library or something. People need to realize there is more to life than the Internet. The fewer dollars I spend on it the more I have for trips, home repairs and tools. Pretty simple really.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple suppliers will reportedly begin preparations for Apple television in Q1 2012