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 3

post #81 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

no it's not

you can squeeze more than enough pixels into that size

Not sure it is a pixel issue. I think the issue is just size. I think the average consumer purchasing an HDTV is looking for a minimum of 40 or 42 inch. I don't remember where I read that, but I'll repost it if I can find it.

Nobody wants to watch football on a slightly larger than a display sized TV. 37" would be a deal breaker for me unless it folds my laundry.
post #82 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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

A device able to display images that has neither a computer attached to it or a TV tuner is most commonly referred to as a monitor.

Apple's biggest hurdle is coming up with a more integrated approach to content deliver that gives consumers a cost-effective means of accessing the programming that is available through satellite and cable. Network programming is the easy part. Cut a deal with the providers and distribute it through iTunes. But what about live news casts and the broadcasting of sporting events. What about specialty programming. For example, in Canada, you can get foreign-language programming for a fee.

It seems to me that one option is to draw in local news and sports programming from over the air, which would help fill in a lot of gaps. So a tuner seems to me to be pretty much inevitable. It doesn't cure all ills, though, and not in all markets. The aforementioned foreign-language programming, for example, is not broadcast over the air. Also, some customers, especially in more sparsely populated regions of Canada, are not located close to a significant range of over-the-air stations.

On the other hand, maybe Apple isn't looking to meet the needs of every consumer in the North American market. There is but a small percentage of consumers concerned with acquiring foreign-language content. And not everyone is into sports or worries about collecting their news coverage via television. For quite a few consumers, not having access to such programming would simply be irrelevant. And maybe Apple is satisfied with selling their Apple TV to that percentage of consumers who don't care about what they couldn't get using whatever delivery process Apple starts off with. The potential customers would still number in the millions and it would be a start.

I don't know what Apple has planned, obviously, but if I was to speculate, it would be to provide a single piece of hardware that gives customers access to content and a means of storing that content, possibly via iCloud. The interface would be intuitive and certainly make more sense than the fractured set-up we all now deal with. It would mean a TV with a higher initial cost but not a higher cost when considered in terms of the overall cost of ownership. You would buy the Apple TV and not need to buy or rent a set-top box. Apple would charge a fee for content access that would be less expensive than current cable or satellite offerings.

This is not about Apple wanting to get into selling TVs in that the margin for TVs has dropped down to virtually nothing. Sony, for example, is losing a lot of money selling them. Apple will get into the TV market if it believes it can offer an elegant alternative to the existing fractured arrangement that will allow for better margins and still, from a consumer's point of view, a more cost-effective yet enjoyable experience.

If this was about Apple selling TVs, too, they'd have gotten into this market years ago. No, it's not about just selling TVs but about altering the model and being involved in every aspect of the process, just as Apple is one of the few companies doing computer hardware, software and content delivery. This integrated approach not only makes Apple a lot of money, it allows Apple to streamline and hence improve the overall experience for the end user. Only by controlling every aspect of the user experience can Apple deliver what it does, something that isn't fully grasped by many. Sure it means that Apple makes more money but it isn't the evil for consumers that some believe it to be. For example, while the App Store means one source for IOS software, inexpensive, decent software is plentiful through this approach. In addition, Apple is able to deliver software that usually doesn't suffer from a lot of compatibility missteps.

Bottom line, however Apple does this, look for a single device that you have an easy time navigating that delivers most, if not all, of the content we now use our TVs to consume. High initial cost but savings over the long haul and a more customizable experience, rather than be fed 100s of stations and nothing to watch. The state of television as we know it arises out of a lot of solutions and services cobbled together over many decades. It's overdue for an integrated overhaul and I doubt any company but Apple is poised to provide such integration.
post #83 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mKunert View Post

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)

That idea is worth 1 cent--max. Without a lot of additional work, this idea will only work for people who live alone. If I am watching my TV, then I don't want a friend or family member who is standing behind me to control the TV with gestures. I certainly don't want someone to control my TV via voice control.
post #84 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

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.

I agree that Apple would certainly include HDMI ports. I was just being cynical about Apple's record of introducing ports on their Macs that they claim are where the puck is going to be while people have a house full of products they can't connect. I don't think Apple do this to make money, they're just not as user-friendly as they think they are.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
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