Designer Jony Ive reportedly has a 50-inch Apple television in his studio - Page 3

This is why I'm still completely skeptical about Apple making an HDTV. I have no doubt that they've been able to crack it on the hardware end. I can list off at least 10 rather huge ideas that could be game changers on the hardware and software side. I grew up working in the high end custom install industry so I've been doing makeshift automation and integration for years. I know what it would take to make all of this great.

But here's the thing: so do a lot of people, but it has nothing to do with why nothing has really changed.

TV all boils down to content, licensing and delivery, and that whole set of scenes is a phenominally ridiculous mess. So many different groups have competing interests and they're mostly lead by people who are afraid to move forward so as not to possibly give up any ground to new players.

Ask anyone in Hollywood about the original Netflix licensing deals and they'll you they made a huge mistake. They gave content away too cheap because they underestimated the appeal, and now they've learned from that and watching the music industry fall apart.

Then you have the ISP's and cable providers with their own interests and ever-growing overlap.

Then you also have the current hardware industry shipping a ton of shit and making little to no money if they're not simply losing money. Only LG seems to be making any legitimately interesting (though entirely minimal and inconsequential) advancements in control and connectivity. Sony's a joke. Samsung's are just not very good even on the high end. Panasonic makes the best bang for your buck sets but most consumers are still scared of plasma's because they've heard too many outdated or simply untrue horror stories. But bottom line, none of them are having a lot of success selling TV's right now. The margins are too slim, and except to the trained eye, the differences in quality between HDTV's is too subtle for most to justify the price of higher end sets.

The only way Apple makes this work is through amazing advancements in control, connectivity and content delivery. It doesn't all need to be streaming, but they need to be able to control any cable box (very, very possible and potentially very elegant with the right software/hardware combo). The TV's really ought to have Blu-Ray built in for the next 5 or so years as physical media is still too prevelant in the world and the best way to eliminate the complexity of controlling it is to simply integrate it. The HDMI inputs are still necessary for a few years too and need to be able to be configured to exist as sections like on the current Apple TV. If you have an X-Box, you set it up on an input and label it as such and you can access it as simply as you access anything on the current Apple TV main screen. Siri won't be as big of a player here as some think. It'll be an option but it's not even half the battle as too often it won't make sense to use. Perhaps you'd even have customized settings for various gaming systems, cable boxes, etc.

But all this begs the question of why Apple really needs to have this integrated into an actual HDTV at all. In many ways, it makes far more sense for Apple to market an Apple TV with Blu-Ray drive and HDMI inputs that pairs up with a wi-fi HDMI adapter for the TV. You could shove all your crap in a closet, plug it all into the Appel TV box that will then manage it and wirelessly stream the video (and audio unless routed to separate sound system) signal to the TV, any TV. Have a little IR transmitter prism you stick in the front corner in front of all the sources to then control them (specifically the cable box) via Apple's software.

An advanced Apple TV box priced around $199 makes a lot more sense to me than trying to market a full on HDTV. However, I could easily see them offering a $799 42" and $999 50" pair of HDTV monitors with integrated wireless transfer capabilities to communicate with the Apple TV box. The industrial design, panel quality and built-in wireless compatibility with Apple TV combined with very reasonable price points would be very successful. Afterall, the hardware in the Apple TV box is what is going to change far more than the actual display panel, and it'll a lot easier to sell people on upgrading a connectivity box every year or two over an entire TV. No one but ultra nerds like me buy new TV's every year or two.

Anything else they could do likely just won't be possible until the content providers wake up and the ISP's and cable operators get reigned in. That's just not going to happen soon. Again, I have no doubt that Steve Jobs cracked the simple TV code, but I think he was just as serious a year or so ago when he said it simply was too difficult of an industry to crack right now with all the competing industries. More than anything, the success of this venture has very little to do with software or hardware.

Seems to me that there is no consumer interest in "slender displays". Who among us care if their set is half-an-inch thick or three quarters of an inch, an inch or whatever. I watch my TVs head on, not from the side. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Once the set is mounted, who cares how thick the monitor is exactly. Surely it's just a marketing thing because they didn't know what else to stress. The thing is, while LED edge-lighting produces a thinner display, a full array LED approach produces a better picture at the expense of thinness. Uniformity is better with a full array approach as well. The bad news is that so far, full-array LED is far more expensive. Hopefully that will soon change. It is highly likely to considering it used to cost extra to get 1080p and now it's pretty much automatic with the larger screen sizes. It's pretty much down to economy of scale. if production of full-array ramps up, the cost per unit will go way down.

Slender has a lot to do with it as it was a marketing angle, but much of the hype around LED is necessary because plasma has a tainted reputation and they needed something to help sell more expensive (higher margin) TV's. They were specific in branding these as LED's to differentiate them from LCD's despite the fact that it's still an LCD panel that's now LED backlit. It definitely is an improvement over traditional LCD backlighting, but to most viewers, it's a difference that's not very noticeable when viewing even Blu-Ray content. That's why the marketing push centered around them being "thinner" and "more energy efficient." People can see thin and delude themselves into thinking it's important when it isn't very important in most people's configurations and the energy efficiency thing just goes along with the whole green trend. I'm not saying it's all smoke and mirrors at all; I'd take an LED-LCD over an LCD any day, but plasma's are still cheaper, better looking and in many cases quite thin (new Panasonic G-series TV's are basically LED-thin now).

Exactly. To 95% of consumers, there's little difference in HD picture quality between Pioneer's Elite Plasmas of the last few years and a cheap POS Dynex from hell, I mean Best Buy. But they see thin in the store and remember the days of owning huge tube TV's or giant rear-projection TV's or not being able to own bigger sets because of this and immediately they fall in love. It's pure manipulation of people's initial emotional response. Once the TV's are home and settled on a wall or a stand, no one notices. You don't watch a TV from the side, and even when mounting, most people at least wants tilting mount which automatically adds to the depth. Once you're slimmer than 6", it doesn't much matter in the home.

I'm with you 100%, but you forgot to mention the still superior viewing angles of plasma. I hate the way the color washes out on an LCD TV if you aren't sitting straight up, perfectly centered. I also hate how long an LCD takes to "warm up" to full illuminosity, but I believe that's no longer the case for LED-backlit LCDs. Still, plasma is superior and costs significantly less.

I too hope whatever features/content deals the iTV includes find their way to the Apple TV as well. You should be able to get the experience either via the set-top box or by buying the whole iTV.

May surprise you, but Apple is not building a TV only for you and your needs. Every weekend thousands of people buy a new HDTV and some of them will want to try a nice new Apple HDTV. Just as many buy a new 3D HDTV every week.

I've got news for you: "LEDs" as available today are really nothing more that LCDs with some slightly deceptive product descriptions and advertising thrown in....

Add: I should have reasonably guessed that, by the time I got into this thread, someone had already pointed this out (as they did)!

I wonder if he really has a 50" Apple TV or simply a 50" TV connected to an AppleTV.

My question to all is the following- would you buy an apple tv if:

-55" 1080p LED 240hz (or whatever size/plasma)
-Built in Blu-Ray on side (like iMac)
-Cable box built-in (or cable card slot)
-Wifi for streaming (either to cable or iTunes)
-Built in Apple TV that supported some apps (Weather, stocks, pandora, twitter w/ Siri, iMessage w/ siri etc)
-Small Hard Drive for DVR
-One remote w/ a handful of buttons and a microphone (hold down the "Siri" button and say "play Adele", "record breaking bad this Tuesday" "when does mad men come on again" "change channel to CBS" "Play Blu-ray" "show longest cry ever on youtube" etc)
-Insanely easy user interface with beautiful guide and w/ Siri, extremely easy channel/content surfing.
-$500 more than a comparable sized/resolution TV

I know that everyone is talking about content, content, content, but this could be done easily this year. The advantage is simplicity, UI, elegance.
They could also offer an apple tv 3 that would have 1080p streaming, Siri remote, and the apps for a small cost that could hook up to any tv but still keep the ecosystem going, but the all in one appeal is there as the upsell.

Thoughts? Content is too hard of a nut to crack- cable, networks, Internet infrastructure, sports, etc. What about just a kickass tv?

And that's exactly why they're going to do it.

Apple doesn't settle for "just".

I already have a TV which is already hooked up to an AppleTV. Since it doesn't need replacing, the odds of me buying a new integrated Apple TV is very low indeed.

If they release the AppleTV3 with new features I'd buy that but there is a big difference between a small black box that costs $99 and buying a new TV (especially if we are talking about a high end model with a high end price tag).

This is the biggest difficulty companies have selling TVs. Unless a TV stops working or there is a massive technology change (such as CRT to Flat panel), people don't tend to replace TVs.

Maybe the key word here is 'server' eh?

I know it's marketing. They did the same thing with the imac. It didn't increase the available desk space. It simply made the insider hotter, and in some models added fan noise (bigger fans can run at a lower rpm). People are still speculating on a thinner imac even today. I don't think they understand thermodynamics.

By full array LED do you mean that tri colored LED backlight design that Samsung and NEC have used in the past or LEDs replacing LCD displays?



LED has been partially marketing hype in general. It has some advantages, but it's been used as a buzz word in marketing. Many of the best computer displays including newer designs still use CCFL for color reproduction reasons. The uniformity issue on those is often corrected via panel blocking algorithms. On displays not intended for color grading purposes, LED backlighting does seem to offer superior uniformity. With cheaper CCFL displays, they always looked extremely uneven.

Exactly what I wanted to say. A lot of people are under the misconception that LED TVs mean that it is LEDs that do the display.

I dunno - the chick seems big enough for me - I can't see all the assets though. But I agree, we could use something sexier.

EDIT: Oops! TBell beat me to it!

As far as I know, there is no such thing as an LED display that is different technology than an LCD. The LEDs are used for backlighting in place of CCFLs. What I'm referring to is the superior performance of LEDs employed in a costlier set-up currently found in more expensive sets vs. edge-lit LED set-ups that produce an inferior picture, though not dramatically so. When marketing edge-lit LED sets (still a type of LCD), the stress is on a thinness that, really, I believe no one cares about, not really. If you asked a consumer if he or she would rather superior performance or a fraction of thickness taken out of their display, I have a hard time imagining anyone opting for thinness. Once a monitor is set up that additional thinness doesn't even contribute to a TV's visual appeal. It's a selling point that I just don't understand.

Social Networking as the center piece of a TELEVISION SET?

Are you joking? Perhaps you'd like to join Eric Schmidt and his brilliant idea that the main feature of a Google TV was have internet access. Clearly everyone NEEDS to check on Twitter on a 50" screen

My experience of the British is that they are rather proud of the US, considering it to be one of their more succesful IPOs. Also the American spelling is in fact the original English spelling.

This will only be true unless it has you can only get it here licsensing deals.

If apple can provide you with al a carte channels for a third of what your cable company charges it will be awesome. I would gladly pay 5-7 hundred dollars more for a tv that I don't have to pay the cable company 200 dollars a month for content.

While I think that might be a desirable situation, I've seen no evidence that it might be accurate. Is there anything other than anecdotal evidence that cable access is less important than indoor plumbing to any segment of the population? I enjoy using a little Roku device because it connects to a (shudder, horrors) analogue TV. But the superior interface to Plex on my iPad suggests to me that I would significantly prefer an Apple TV box which I plan to purchase soon and connect to an LCD monitor.

How Apple plans to detour around broadcast and cable TV incumbents for the mass market remains the big mystery. Saying they don't have to do so seems like an unlikely answer.

A misconception intentionally pushed by the LCD manufacturers; they've purposely led (no pun intended) customers to believe that these televisions are LED, when in fact they're still LCD; consumers can't be blamed for this misunderstanding.

Question is, why would the TV networks offer these deals to Apple over anyone else?

With the iOS devices, the compelling reason for publishing deals was marketshare. Apple will be starting from zero and expecting deals at launch.

I suppose they could have some integration with the iOS devices but it's still not worth anything until they ship millions of TV units. Apple building a TV has really got everything going against it:

- high purchase price
- saturated, highly competitive market
- very restrictive content publishers
- no previous experience in the TV market

Those same things were true of the iPhone though so if they manage to come up with something compelling enough, they could break into the market. I just think it's going to be a very tough sell and this will be the decider if Tim is able to pull off a new product launch successfully.

I don't know why people are getting so excited about this supposed apple tv. This thing will be no different from anyone else's. None of the TV and Movie studio's give anyone anymore lee way with their content. We have so many content services coming up now, and with the 3 or 4 you do subscribe to you still have to buy a lot of your shows. The shows are in no way cheap. Apple couldn't even make the tv studio's make tv shows 99 cents to rent. They wanted everything to be 2.99 or more. There will be absolutely no benefit to an apple tv.

Although you have some valid points, one should not go too far afield of the facts to make a point. A few points:

1. - high purchase price--Debatable. The iPad is not the highest priced tablet among comparably featured competitors. Neither is the iPhone. As for the MacBook Air, the Mac users take no small amount of pride in the knowledge that Apple's retail price of the MacBook Air is about the same price as the cost of production for its competitors.
2. - saturated, highly competitive market--Agree completely.
3. - very restrictive content publishers--Agree completely.
4. - no previous experience in the TV market--Disagree completely. To the contrary, Apple's experience with TV goes back decades. Obviously, the Macintosh TV is (1993-1994) was a Mac that also served as a fully-functional TV set in the early 1990s. For more than a decade, Apple has produced software that is used in the television industry. It hardware goes back even farther. Certainly the TV STB counts as experience in the TV market. I have no idea how you can blithely ignore the iTunes Music Store. The iTMS is a favorite source of TV programming for many iTunes customers.

In fact, much of the discussion of Apple's reentry into the TV set market on this forum and others assumes that Apple's new TV effort will be an evolutionary upgrade to the offerings on the iTMS coupled to a new TV with integrated display. As a result, we have gotten a lot of "predicting the present" and even "predicting the past."

I was among those who were convinced that Apple would not reenter the TV set market. However, that was before I learned about Mobile DTV. IMHO, Apple will integrate MDTV tuners into its mobile devices because the competition will integrate MDTV tuners into their mobile devices. If Apple builds mobile devices that can receive broadcast TV programming, then it only makes sense to me that Apple will build stationary devices that receive TV programming via broadcast and other sources. The only question is what will Apple's effort look like.

We know the challenges--at least, some of us do. We also know that Apple has some very smart and innovative people. It will be interesting to see how they overcome the challenges.

You're right that the iPad has a purchase price in the region of some 50" TVs and is doing ok but I'd expect the number of people who didn't have a tablet to be higher than the number of people who don't have a TV and the price range of a 50" TV would dissuade them from buying Apple's implementation.


Anything Apple did in the 90s only affected a handful of people and putting a TV tuner into a computer doesn't make a TV any more than an Elgato USB stick. The software used in the TV industry (I assume you mean editing software) has no relation to the delivery framework at all.

The TV and iTMS are certainly TV delivery options but they avoid giving out numbers for their movie content now. In 2009, it was 250 million TV show rentals vs 2 billion songs. In 2011, it's 15 billion songs so presumably nearing 2 billion TV shows but that's only 8 TV episodes per iTunes user if it is even that much. Normal TV viewers will watch at least 1 episode per day x 365 days x 3 years = 1095 episodes.

They need to get out of the pay-per-episode model to make a real impact on TV delivery.


Doesn't that fall under the category of 'predicting the present'? People watch one-to-many broadcast TV right now but there seems to be a growing preference of VOD over pre-programmed content. Also, 3rd parties are making adaptors for iPhones to support MDTV so I doubt Apple would use up valuable space inside the phone for an extra tuner and have a special aerial for it. If it used the same 3G network hardware maybe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...adcast-service

but the network operators have to play along. If it was integrated though, countries that charge a TV license would require a TV license to own a mobile phone.

MDTV would definitely reduce network traffic on the usual network channels and Airplay is a compelling bonus but none of that requires an Apple television set. What reason is there to buy an Apple television set with an MDTV tuner when it's an open standard broadcast format that anyone can integrate into a TV?

An Apple television set has to offer something more than competing hardware, in some mix of design, function and price.

All Apple is doing is applying the same interface to TV that they have on their other products. It will just be a large iPad. I welcome seeing it but its just another step in selling entertainment juke boxes.

Oh, so you've seen this new device? So you know this for sure?

I thought so.

This is unworthy of you. I was comparing the iPad to other tablets, the iPhone to other phones, the MacBook Air to other full-power ultralightweight laptops. You can't compare across product categories.


The Macintosh TV was a TV. Concede the point and move on.


A numbers argument in this context is an argument weak in the extreme. In 1985, Fox Broadcasting Company's FOX network had only one regularly scheduled program accounting for five (5) hours per week. For a network that started with only Joan Rivers as an on-air personality, FOX seems to have done OK. I have much more confidence in Apple than I have in FOX. If Apple gives it a go, then I am confident that it will also do OK.


Why? Traditional broadcast and cable networks sell TV shows by the episode. I purchased a documentaries on DVD from NBC, and via digital download from HBO and C-SPAN. By what logic does selling shows by the episode hurt Apple when it clearly hurts no one else? To the contrary, the iTunes Music Store is one of the pieces in place if Apple produces a line of smart TVs.


Absolutely.


This may be the case. What is also the case in the USA is that there is a big cut-the-cord movement. Pay TV services, both cable and satellite, are losing subscribers to broadcast TV.


I can remember when all mobile phones had pronounced aerials. Today, the aerials are concealed within the body or frame of the phone. The iPhone 4 ad iPhone 4S have two aerials integrated within design of the frame.

I will simply put it to you like this: I am convinced that Apple's competitors will integrate MDTV tuners in their cell phones.* Do you disagree? If you do, then what is your reasoning? If Apple's competitors sell phones with integrated MDTV tuners, then what rationale will Apple use to refuse to include the feature?


Obviously, you have to pay the fee if you live in a country that levies a license fee. But, you have to pay the same fee if you use an adaptor or if you use an integrated receiver.


MDTV is not just one thing.* Pay services like ESPN and HBO are expected to offer their programming over MDTV. They have the option of going over the cellular network, Wi-Fi, or renting transmitters to broadcast their signals. However, the vast majority of MDTV programming is simulcast from local broadcast TV stations and is free. To the viewer, it appears to be the same programming that they enjoy at home.

You are absolutely correct that none of this requires an Apple TV set. However, let me share two words with you--synergy and leverage. In North America, Mobile DTV operates on the ATSC-M/H digital broadcast standard. "M/H" stands for "Mobile/Handheld." This is very similar to the ATSC standard for stationary digital broadcast TV reception. As I said above, the two standards look the same to the viewer. If he wants to tune to Channel 4.1 to watch the Super Bowl on NBC 4 but he is delayed on the bus, then he can take out his MDTV receiver and tune it to Channel 4.1 to watch the Super Bowl on NBC 4.

The fly in the ointment is that not all broadcast stations simulcast on MDTV. I live in state where not a single station broadcasts an ATSC-M/H signal. Even large metropolitan areas where MDTV broadcasts are available, the smaller stations are still not available on mobile devices. I interpret this to mean that Apple has time.

If Apple develops the UI to support the MDTV on the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch, then it will have done virtually everything that it needs to support HDTV on an iOS-based smart TV. What is the business case for not leveraging the work? Today, you may download iOS apps that emulate the remote controls of certain home entertainment components. If I can use my iPhone to control my Google TV (and I could if you owned a Sony Google TV), then why should I not use my iPhone or iPad to control my Apple HDTV?


Of course. Does anyone disagree?

*Update. On January 3, 2012, the MCV consortium announced that a deal between MetroPCS will provide Dyle-branded broadcast signals to MDTV-enabled Android phones from Samsung. Dell Computer is part of the deal. The service will be demonstrated at CES in Las Vegas January 10-13, 2012.

Ive's in a studio? I didn't know San Francisco's real estate prices were that high.

That's a joke, right?

though this could easily be yet another "anonymous" tip that goes nowhere, for some reason it rings true for me.

>> Apple has to justify their premium fee and protect the brand. With a smaller TV -- there just isn't enough wiggle room. People wanting a bargain are thinking; "Well, with $99 and a little know-how, I can...." So Apple will be targeting the people with disposable income that don't want to do much more than "set password for Wireless network" and be done with it.

Apple will leverage their other technologies to give VALUE back to the consumer.

PREDICTIONS:
>> The Device will be somewhere between $599 and $999. Psychologically, Apple will be wanting people to think of it as an inexpensive iMac rather than a costly big screen TV.
>> It won't NEED external stereo hookups but will probably have them. There will be a state-of-the-art flat panel speaker built in -- OK, sure, hard to impress here, but having that actual 3D audio working in most homes where the 5.1 is NOT and never will be set up correctly, is going to impress the non-pros.
>> It will have 3D microphones -- like the iPhone 4S and Kinect that can localize the speaker -- which is important because;
>> Will leverage SIRI control interface.
>> MAYBE it will have the upcoming 3D Apple Interface -- there are some patents floating around that allow for knocking someone out from the background and making them and the scenery part of the interface (also, making a bezel glow like the content -- less impressive). It's pretty cool to have 'real-time' reflections from the room on objects in the TV -- maybe that's the 2.0 software but,...
>> Will have a Camera -- facetime will be available as well as facebook. Adding a camera is like $15 at the most, Apple's IOS already supports these things so it's a matter of tweaking a few things.
>> 2.0 will have iApps and Games -- but probably not with the first edition.
>> The OS will be more along the lines of iOS and not Apple TV -- I figure mostly because of the familiarity and cross-tying the developers. But the Apps and the Appstore for the iTV will be sandboxed -- since Apple doesn't want to introduce complexity to this device.
>> The Resolution a multiple of the iPhone/iPad -- if I were making it, I'd have 1536 x 1152 (150% of 1024x768 on the iPad). That allows for a comfortable letterboxing or self-hiding controls and data on the edge of the screen -- computer and Hi-Def videos would be comfortable in this space.
>> iCloud will be used to allow users to get email and facebook (blogging) social media on the device -- though I'm guessing it will be more speech to text or just a hand-gesture control with occasional keyboard pop-up onscreen. Apple doesn't like keyboards with lots of moving pieces -- and having kids with dirty hands myself, I'm happy they went this path with the iTouch devices.

These are all just guesses -- but it's already Apple tech in use or on the way. It will try NOT to be a computer. It will be interesting to see how they integrate the iTunes interface with something like TiVo. The Apple TV is NOT the best -- but neither are any of the others as far as media interface. At a guess -- I figure the interface will look a lot like the New Final Cut Pro X, where there is some intelligence in organizing content.


>> At a GUESS, there won't be much local storage unless you link it to a computer or USB hard drive -- not that I want that -- but Apple figures everything will be in the Cloud. 32 Gigs of Flash Storage, however, will allow for a cache of a few movies -- OK, I'm already annoyed with that nightmare,... so there will be a 2.5" IDE drive in there that stores a Terrabyte if Apple isn't TOTALLY dependent on everyone having a 6 MBS internet connection.

The cable card mess is on the cable co side is Very non apple and in some areas you need the add on SDV tuners hooked to a USB port. Also SDV systems have pop up's that say press a button to keep watching this channel.
Also with cable card you need to get guide data / channel maps for each headend and some times the data get's out of sink when new channels are added / new channels don't show right away on cable cards (the cable co's own boxes don't have that issues)

And that still does not work with dish, directv, U-Verse. Small analog only cable systems. Canadian systems don't use cable card as well. In the UK cable card is a no go as well.

You need to get your head around the fact that there is no single solution for all television. Even in the USA, things have gotten more complex because cable and broadcast no longer use the same standard. Before the digital transition, they both used NTSC. Now [digital] broadcast is ATSC whereas [digital] cable is QAM. Off shore cable and broadcast providers use different mixes of standards. I have not even gotten into the additional complications of free-to-air and subscription satellite TV services.

These are issues that every TV set manufacturer deals with and has solved. If Apple gets into the TV set business, then it will solve it as well.

Next issue.

My original point wasn't about high price relative to the competition though. The 27" Cinema display is very competitive but it has a high purchase price, which severely limits its market.


Does it count as experience in the TV market though? It sold for 4 months and only 10,000 units were built. I'd say the old AV computers (Quadras) had more impact than that but still weren't bought as TVs.


It doesn't hurt if you have other purchase options. Subscriptions are clearly the most popular purchase method as you have a flat fee and unlimited programming.


But that means MDTV is bad for Apple as it means people watch free TV over paid iTunes content.


Maybe but I see a lot of aerials poking out in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwwq60unDiw

The aerial is the new stylus.


But integrated is without the option and it's not cheap. UK licenses are £145 ($220) per year. Imagine a student having to pay $220 per year to take a phone to college.

I think Android phone manufacturers will integrate MDTV because they have to keep adding features to justify the sale. Apple's justification is quality. Mobile phones have had live TV features for a while, same with FM and DAB radio tuners and they have been pointed out time and time again as iPhone flaws. It has done nothing to affect iPhone sales though.

Apple chooses technology that they feel has longevity and is right for the purpose. I personally feel that broadcast TV is dead in the water. I think that people only want to watch shows they like without ads and without air-time filler and if Apple provided a cost-effective service that simply wasn't pay-per-episode that was as equally accessible on mobile broadband as wifi with good content, it would be very popular.

Sports and news almost require a live feed but I don't think broadcast is the way to do it. There might be two football matches on live at the same time and a channel can't broadcast two matches lives but they can do it easily with a VOD service. Apple's keynotes are a perfect example of how to do TV broadcast with web technology.


TV isn't going back to 4:3. It works for the iPad because it uses apps but a TV's primary purpose is not apps. Nor would it be any less than 1080p.

I live in the USA, not the UK. Therefore, I will defer to you about the state of the television market in the UK. Of the US TV market, however, I have quite a bit of knowledge. Here, the number of subscribers for
cable and satellite TV providers is declining. Rather than being dead in the water, the number broadcast viewers is increasing. Households are retrofitting TV antennas into their existing the cabling that had been dedicated to cable TV. They are even using old satellite dish masts to mount OTA antennas while preserving the cables used by their old dishes. This is not what I believe. This is a fact.

This does not mean that VOD viewing is not increasing in the US. I believe that it is. However, VOD represents a small number of viewers. Even a large rate of increase in VOD viewing may be insufficient to stem the tide of viewers who abandon subscription TV.


You don't seem to quite understand the nature of MDTV. MDTV--the vast majority, at least--is the exact same programming that the viewer would receive at home. If the football game is available live on broadcast TV, then it is available live on the station's MDTV feed. It is free. If there are two games on at the same time, then the viewer will do what he does at home--switch back and forth between the channels carrying the games. This is not a novel concept.

What you don't seem to get is that this is available now. It is available on the iPhone now. The only thing is that the iPhone owner must purchase third party add-on MDTV tuner--and Apple has minimal involvement.


You speak of MDTV as though it were some sort of fly-by-night operation. I have no idea what you mean by "TV features." Your experience then has nothing to do with MDTV now. ATSC-M/H in North American and similar protocols elsewhere are designed and engineered for dedicated mobile receivers and MDTV-enabled mobile devices.

I might also add that Apple had nothing to do with those live TV, FM, and DAB features. That said, there will be demonstrations of first-party MDTV involvement at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas next week. My guess is that those in attendance will be impressed. Apple does not telegraph its moves. However, a good show by the competition will have Apple customers asking about Apple's plans for the technology.

I don't expect an answer from Apple next week. However, I do expect an answer which I am now convinced will be affirmative. As I said before, I believe that Apple's work on MDTV-enabled mobile devices can be leveraged to design a line of iOS-based smart [HD]TVs.

I see that too due to the change to digital offering more channels for free such that a cable subscription doesn't offer enough extra value to justify it. But I don't think it's the best delivery method, it's just the best option so far and comes with limitations.


But one channel can't broadcast two games at once, the broadcaster has to own two channels and advertise both and find content to run both 24/7. With on-demand, a content provider can just have one entry point and let you choose between as many content feeds as you want.

Not only that, how can operators charge for premium content on a free, broadcast service? If there isn't a way, MDTV won't get that content.


Things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2o1iXw3WuQ

Proprietary, low quality TV services.


Presumably without the large external aerial though. It seems that competing devices are going to be designed like this:

http://www.watchmdtv.com/2011/02/07/...n-at-ces-2011/

Unless it will be possible to pick up the signals without a bulky aerial, I don't think it's the right option for Apple. I do think it's a great additional feature to have on a mobile device - being able to view local TV on an iPad while on holiday would be good - but I think that Apple will leave this for 3rd parties.

Name them.

— The Irish invented beer.
— All snakes originated from Dublin.
— Sweet potatoes are just female potatoes.
— Tom Cruise had a spot on Irish accent in Far and Away (1992).
— Lake Eire's size and underwater terrain is a mirror opposite of Éire.
— The Irish dug the Irish seas to protect them from the blue-eyed White Walkers.
— Ireland's number one export is DeLoreans.

It has nothing to do with what is the best delivery. It is an option for busy people on the go. I would certainly never substitute MDTV on my iPhone for my HDTVs at home. However, I am more likely complete my work in my office rather than taking it home if I can watch the 6:00 pm news on my iPhone while I work.


This is simply not true. It is not true by several definitions of "channel." For example, the National Football League has a channel on the DirectTV satellite service that shows up to 9 NFL games simultaneously on a single screen. For years now, cable TV providers in the US have transmitted 27 digital program streams via a single traditional cable channel. Multicasting is a standard feature of digital broadcasting. It is common for US broadcast TV stations to transmit up to five simultaneous programs on a single RF channel.

You appear to be fixated on watching two games at once. In the US, your ability to do this at home depends on a lot of things. If CBS and FOX carry two NFL games at the same time, then I may watch them both if I have two TV tuners. I may setup two TV sets side-by-side or setup a dual tuner PCTV system with PIP. If the two games that I want are carried simultaneously by different FOX stations, then I need two different tuners, one of which must be connected to a TV antenna, to receive both telecasts. The alternative is to pay for an out-of-market games package from my cable company or satellite provider.

You are carrying on about watching two games. For the vast majority of fans, I am at a loss to see what MDTV lacks that sports fans expect from traditional broadcasts. With MDTV, you have your games wherever you are. You don't have to go home. You don't have to go to a pub.


OK. You like VOD. Nowhere in any of my posts have I said anything negative about VOD. However, MDTV allows you to take your TV wherever you go free of charge. VOD costs money.


In the US, operators cannot charge for premium content on free broadcast service--at least it is illegal to do so. I understand that viewers elsewhere are not so protected.


I'm not talking about proprietary low-quality services. That YouTube video dates back to January 9, 2007--the same day that Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone. The world has changed since then. I am certainly not talking about Verizon's proprietary V-cast service. As an AT&T subscriber, I can't use it. When we talk about Mobile DTV in North America, we are talking about ATSC-M/H, a standard that is based on the ATSC standard that all full-power and many low-power broadcast TV stations adhere to. As I said in an earlier post, there will be paid MDTV service. However, the vast majority of MDTV is free because it is broadcast by our traditional broadcast TV stations. These are the stations broadcasting MDTV now. More are to follow.


I believe that are making too much of the aerial issue. Back when TV signals were made available to homeowners, this is what the aerials looked like. They are a bit smaller now. Quite frankly, becaude most digital broadcasting is in the UHF band, I don't see how a telescoping aerial is particularly effective. UHF reception is better with small fixed antenna elements. That said, antenna design is an issue for all modern devices that send and/or receive RF. However, there are sophisticated computer codes that help radio engineers design aerials whose effective sizes are larger than their physical dimensions.

I notice that you are actually taking the time to checkout websites that deal with MDTV. Read and be wise.

I don't have cable or satellite, so I really don't care what Apple does on the content side. As long as it has Netflix and iTunes, I'm set. In a perfect world it would also support Amazon Prime, but that probably won't happen.

If Apple does something fancy on the tuner side, I could be convinced to put an antenna on the roof. But I'm not going back to paying $50+ per month for all the shit that's on cable. The only thing I could be convinced to pay for monthly would be HBO a la carte.

Speaking of, if they do have a sweet license deal up their sleeves, I would not be surprised if they chose to brand it À la Carte.