AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn-Sharp deal expected to target orders for Apple television
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foxconn-Sharp deal expected to target orders for Apple television - Page 2

post #41 of 54
3/28/12 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Really- which ones? Which ones have "That’s four times the number of pixels in iPad 2 and a million more than an HDTV."?
or 2048 X 1536 to be more precise?
I'd like to get one now that's comparable to my iPhone 4 or new iPad.

You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.

Here's the numbers:
True HD= 1920x1080 @16:9 aspect
iPhone =960x640 @ 4:3 aspect
iPad=2048x1536 @ 4:3 aspect
True HD translated into 4:3 = 1920x1440, not that far off from the iPad.

Pixels might be bigger on an HDTV but are very close to the same proportional ppi when viewed at normal distances.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 54
3/28/12 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.

Here's the numbers:
True HD= 1920x1080 @16:9 aspect
iPhone =960x640 @ 4:3 aspect
iPad=2048x1536 @ 4:3 aspect
True HD translated into 4:3 = 1920x1440, not that far off from the iPad.

Pixels might be bigger on an HDTV but are very close to the same proportional ppi when viewed at normal distances.

Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 54
3/28/12 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.

I get that...but I (and a couple others) am trying to tell you it's a pointless endeavor to do so, unless industry standards change in the near future.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 54
3/28/12 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market.

TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.

1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.
Mavericks will be a free download. Trust me.
Reply
Mavericks will be a free download. Trust me.
Reply
post #45 of 54
3/28/12 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.

1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.

I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 54
3/28/12 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking?

No. Just as the first iPad screen and first iPhone screen weren't groundbreaking. A good display is a given, the area of breaking ground is in having everything from the one device.
Mavericks will be a free download. Trust me.
Reply
Mavericks will be a free download. Trust me.
Reply
post #47 of 54
3/28/12 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Oh right- whatever you say.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.

He/She means that the farther away you are, the less pixel density you need to be retina display. Something that you hold closer to your eyes, like an iPhone needs more PPI in order to be retina, while a giant billboard could be like 8 DPI and still be retina.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 54
3/28/12 at 1:48pm
Personally I don't think Apple will release a TV. I think Steve was feeding Isaacson a bit of misleading information. When Steve said he "cracked the Apple TV", that means he threw his iPhone at the screen because he hated the new Apple TV interface so much.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 54
3/28/12 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Truedat- Steve Jobs also said. "I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo." when the iPod HiFi was released. For all we know he could have been jerking Issacson's chain- giving ambigous anwers- knowing this would keep him even more relevant beyond the grave.
TV's run on content and how could SJ crack the Hollyood/cable TV cabal? You can SHOUT at your Siri iTV all you want but you're not going to watch i.e. Game of Thrones unless HBO is on board with Apple.

That is why Apple needs to buy Disney for getting ESPN content. This way Apple will also get all the theme parks.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 54
3/28/12 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 54
3/28/12 at 4:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.

I'd see different pics. We're going to hear about this TV (and other products) until it actually exists, if it ever exists, so it might behoove AI to contract some people to create quality mockups.

Besides making the article feel a little less droll from seeing the image several times a week it could exite readership, this increasing page hits. If the mockup is hotlinked or copied the watermark will continually point readers AI.

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply
post #52 of 54
3/29/12 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.

Hi Sheldon,

There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.

Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 54
3/29/12 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.

LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Hi Sheldon,

There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.

Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.

You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #54 of 54
3/30/12 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.



You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.

I actually get 1080i from my cable provider with minimal compression artifacts. But my OTA broadcasts are 1080p with occasional periods where reception drops and the picture pixelates and sound garbles a bit (the new version of static and snow). Unfortunately, I can only receive Public Television, Fox, and either CBS or ABC but never both at once.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn-Sharp deal expected to target orders for Apple television