Apple television predicted to headline three core product launches in 2013 - Page 2

 

Really?! Huh. Thought they were much cheaper than that by now. And LCDs are cheaper than plasma, anyway. Apple wouldn't use plasma.

 

That's insane. At 15', I can see the pixels on a 70" screen. An 80" would look unimaginably bad. Apple would want to go SHV on an 80", and then the price becomes $29,999.

 

 

1, 2, and 3: Not in the slightest.

 

Look, we're gonna get one. It's gonna be completely redone. And it's gonna be great. But there won't be any FireWire ports, there won't be any optical drives, and there could very well be no internal PCIe expansion. Just a single, double-wide 16x PCIe 3.0 slot for the graphics card. But it will be great.

 

75% of the existing Mac Pro userbase will whine about it, saying it's the end. The other quarter will immediately buy it and instantly be on the forefront of professional computing across any platform. Half of the 75% will eventually buy it once they see reviews and how well it works where it does, since no other computers from anyone else will be close. A quarter of the 75% will keep their current Mac Pro until it dies, all the while whining on forums about how they refuse to change and how Apple needs to meet their archaic needs. The final quarter will immediately move away from Apple entirely, and half of them will regret it once they see reviews and how poorly the crap from everyone else works.

 

That's a lot of fractions. 

Huh? What ever services revamp there will be will apply across the board, whether a full tv set is introduced or not. I know there are very good reasons for simply updating the Apple TV box, but my argument is that I am sure there is a strong temptation for Apple to control the whole user experience, not just that of the little aTV. Were Apple to bring out a complete TV the user experience would undoubtedly be a drastically better one. If a cable box had to be connected you'd be back to same old same old whenever you view through the cable box, but the push would be towards programming over IP from Apple. 

How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?

Agreed...Apple will have the best cardboard box. though! :)

 

Yep, I saw a thin LG with an extremely thin aluminum frame, Really rather elegant. So I take your point about not being much room for impact there.

 

I also agree about showing the iMac/monitor with ATV icons on the screen as the mockup for Apple's TV. It would look better with the above mentioned LG with ATV icons and an Apple logo photoshopped in.

I can't imagine what an iTV would bring to the table that I would want, and almost certainly nothing in that price range. Compare the state of the technology to where we were before the introduction of the iPod and iTunes systems - in those cases there was a vast need for a tech improvement, and it could be done in a price range compatible with consumer expectations. No so here. The only thing that is ripe for improvement is the ability to get content on an attractive pricing model. iTunes went through this getting album only songs individually.

 

Apple has never gotten involved in a tech race to the bottom of the price list. I just saw a 46" HDTV for sale at like $380. A dongle for TVs that makes the interface more intuitive or provides content on a new pricing model? Sure. That's AppleTV, a (beloved) hobby. Hardware to compete with others that make displays? Even beautiful displays? Don't see it happening.

 

Just don't see a tech model for an iTV that would be desirable. Makes no sense to me.

I'm thinking Apple quality, not Sears or Costco

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P55VT50

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P65VT50

Next year's VT50 might catch up with where Pioneer left off and less than half the Pioneer price.

Edit: and i wouldn't buy LCD tech for a HT display.

I understand why Apple has the Apple TV- and I love my ATV.
The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.

It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...

 

Yep.  I love my Apple TV but they're behind on content thus far because developers haven't had access.  Roku has done quite well on this.

 

 

That made me lol.

 

Which is why I agree Apple's TV aspirations do not involve a panel.  It's a set top box with DVR functionality and based on iOS.  It just has to be.  Couple that with unbundled channel options and Apple will have truly "cracked the code" as Steve said he had.

 

Depends on bundled vs unbundled channels.  If unbundled, I'd be willing to pay $299 to $399 for it, because I'll be able to cut my Direct TV bill in half per month anyway.

 

Because:

 

1) No one buys small TVs anymore

2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV

3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)

4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment). 

 

2013 - streaming radio service ("Pingdora?")

 

2014 - streaming television service ("The Apple Channel")

MAC PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Agree.  I think iPad has, to a large extent, replaced the bedroom TV.  And all other non-living-room TVs too, now that I think about it.  The Remote app lets you watch your Apple TV content, and third-party apps let you watch live TV, DVR-ed content, or pay-per-view (e.g. the DirecTV app and DirecTV Everywhere.)  In a way, iPad is the new "small TV."

 

I think Apple is taking exactly the opposite approach to internet TV than that of Google.  Google TV crams internet complexity onto your living room TV.  Bad idea.  The living room TV is a shared resource, and personal use like tweets, texts, email, bookmarked web pages, etc. can only cause contention for that shared resource.  If someone is tweeting their dessert using the living room TV as a screen, then nobody else will be able to use the biggest screen in the house.  Terrible use of a high-value communal resource.  Conversely, when the family is watching Wall-E, nobody will be allowed to check their messages or tweet their dessert or look up DeWalt 14-volt drill prices on Amazon.

 

On the other hand, Apple is keeping the living room TV experience relatively simple with the current Apple TV.  The communal viewing of movies and TV shows stays more or less the same, with on-demand content from iTunes on Apple TV.  But iTunes + Remote and DirecTV Everywhere are also shifting TV consumption, in an easy and natural way, to smaller screens like iPad.  The exact opposite of the centralized, high-value TV resource like Google TV + living room big-screen TV.

 

VCRs and DVRs taught us to expect time-shifted TV content.  Now iPad is adding space-shifting as well.  You can watch your live or pre-recorded content anywhere now, on iPad and other pads.  No need to buy a dedicated TV for the bedroom etc.  And the best part of the whole deal for Apple is that decentralizing the TV resource means that everyone in the family can have a separate TV experience.  Everyone can have an iPad.  There's only one living room, only one living room TV.  But there could be many iPads in the household.  And more iPads means more revenue for Apple.

Edited by SockRolid - 11/20/12 at 10:35am

Price will stay $99 entry. And I think the iPad mini proved Apple is done with anything smaller than 16gb except at the nano.
You're trying to compare pricing structures between devices that are apples and oranges. You're forgetting the ATV lacks the two most costly components of an iOS device: display and battery. Seriously, when you take those two things out of the iPod Touch and what's left? A wafer-thin piece of equipment. Other than the I/Os that Apple TV could have been the size of a credit card.
Edited by antkm1 - 11/20/12 at 11:08am

I like where you are heading with this but I think it a ways off yet.  Most people I know still have a TV in their bedroom and while not the most used device in the house, it's definitely used.

I just bought a Toshiba 24" for the bedroom last year. It gets turned on when we are home sick, or if it snows bad and we need to quickly see if leaving bed that morning is necessary. You must live in a dream land, I think just about everyone I know has a TV in the bedroom, they may not get used regularly but they are present.

About this debate between a display or a STB...
Personally, I see it as a STB. The experts have already shown enough proof the TV market is really not a big enough market for Apple to really make sweeping changes in. A full monitor is pointless if you still have to plug-in components (I.e. cable, HT audio, BD, etc...) and for Apple to spend R&D on integrating all those technologies into a device that would make a marginal impact on the TV market would be a waste of time and resources.

Where Apple will tackle this market it in control. My crappy Motorola STB cable remote already has the capability to control all my HT devices. If Apple could do this, they wouldn't need a full Apple 42"-55" TV. If they could just reinvent the ATV home screen to become more customized to your existing components...and have the ability to fully utilize their functionalities, then you'd have something. And at $99, you'd have a totally new experience controlled entirely from the ATV. You need to calibrate your monitor, ATV does it. You want to play a BD? There an app for that. Watch live or recorded TV? Another home screen App. The Interface is what will make the new ATV popular. It will make the TV experience easier.

What is the future I'd Apps for ATV? I don't know but I'm thinking it will be as paid subscriptions. You want NBC? Their App could be free for basic over-air programming, but cost you $X.99/mo. per extra channel, like app add-ons. Frankly, I'm not sure why this idea hasn't already been initiated. I guess that might be closer to the equivalent of Hulu+. However, what really pisses me off about Hulu is that current episodes have a time window of viewing before they become "expired" and don't return until who-knows-when, prolly after the BD comes out for the season. That's the one drawback to Hulu, and that the entire catalog of each network is not available on Hulu. They have BBC America, but not Doctor Who, or Top Gear or any other top show they have. Hulu is nice for $8/mo. But has drawbacks.

Still not a 1:1 to traditional cable. Apple needs to rival cable in some way to be viable at all in this market. They can't do it on hardware alone, or just in software and/or services. And hardware would be pointless, since price will drive sales 99.99% of the time in this market. so why not tackle the software/UI and services? And sell millions more $99 STBs instead? You'd get a lot more users on a cheap box with great services and UI than an expensive panel that may look and function great, but has no user base because its out of most user's price point.
Edited by antkm1 - 11/20/12 at 11:16am

I use the UI of the cable provider, but increasingly we use the Apple TV UI, inc Netflix. Apple's desired model regardless of what you view it on, or where the programming is coming from is definitely that they provide the UI. When connected by hdmi I use the UI of my cable provider but I have to use the television set volume controller. Apple's way would be no cable box, no dvd/pvr and gaming through iPad / iPod / iPhone using Airplay. More and more cable companies offer programming over IP and if this could be accessed through an app such as Netflix it would be a win win for everybody. DVD/PVR will become redundant in a programming over IP world. Obviously Apple would have to provide inputs for all those who have not or will not live entirely in 'Apple's world'.

 

As far as the Television set and your hypothetical problem goes, the answer would be the same as applies to every other smart tv out there. 

 

I am not saying this will happen but it surprises me how virtually everybody here only see the problems and not the possibilities.

1)Wrong
2)Wrong
3)Wrong
4)Agree

Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.

 

Actually, Tesla uses Android, since Google was an early investor in the company.

I have the Panasonic VT 65" plasma (with stunning 3D).

 

Once you get used to modern plasma, you can't go back to LCD (or what passes off for LED).

 

If Apple does not offer at least 65", plasma, and 3D, I'd stick with an @TV driving my Panasonic. (Although, the one slight hitch might be that after its recent, gargantuan loss, Panasonic may not be around all that much longer as a maker of TVs).

And Viera isn't all that bad. Panasonic just showcased a 80" 8K resolution plasma, I think they're planning on sticking around a bit.

My guess is that 3d will always be a gimmick. 

 

This is ridiculous.  It may apply to you, but you're not every consumer.

 

1) I bought 2 small TVs last year.  One for each kid's bedroom.  They're used daily.

2) No.  Why would I want to pay so much when I can buy a decent 24" TV for a few hundred bucks?

3) Again, nope.  I'm not a fool.  I have a 51" in my bedroom and a 51" in the living room.  The bedroom TV is where my wife and I watch TV after getting kids in bed

4) On this I agree.  

I agree 100%. I have this TV as well and absolutely love it. I have it connected to a DirecTV DVR and Playstation 3. Once you are used to the clarity of the picture and also size of this TV it is hard to imagine going with a smaller and inferior picture from a LCD/LED type set. If Apple decides to make an Apple TV that is actual TV set and not just a box, this Panny sets the bar pretty high. I also doubt Apple would make a 65" model. Regardless what Apple introduces I doubt too many people would buy it if they are satisfied with their current set. I certainly won't be looking for a new one until my current one stops working. 

For some people, and for some movies, yes.

 

But if I am viewing something like Avengers or Avatar or Life of Pi, there's no other way I'd rather be viewing it. And unless you've really seen it on a large-screen plasma -- perhaps you have -- you can't comment. It's surprisingly good.

 

Yeah, because don't you just know Jony Ive just LOVES his dangly boxes and Samsung TV setup. Nothing to see here, moving on. (yes that was sarcasm, the man cares about the most minute of details and I'd bet like most folks at Apple, myself included, absolutely hates the current standard of the TV experience out there)

 

You shouldn't need multiple devices. You shouldn't have to put-up-with any cables, beside a single power cord. You shouldn't need more than one remote (if even you mainly use just one, which in most cases is not true). You shouldn't need to buy, own, configure and set up and/use a universal remote - to attempt to fix the mess in the middle of your living room against the wall. Not that they even do that. You shouldn't need to do any of this.

 

There should be a product out there from the best hardware and software company on the planet, that product should do it all, that product should exist, and when it does it will slowly but surely begin to sell, making Apple a nice bit of money, but far more importantly, fixing the mess that is TV. People should be able to pop the TV out of the box, enter their Apple ID and be off to the races. Boom!

 

The writing is on the wall, it's only a matter of time, they're going to make a TV not for rumors, but because that market is ripe for genuine revolution, and not simply another box dangling from your TV.

 

Sooner I later you'll have to open your eyes to all of this.

 

The one feature Piper seems to think will be iTV's main feature...

 

 

...is the very thing I think Apple's setting up to destroy. Forever. Just as the iPhone (and other smart phones) replaced and combined multiple devices into one, I think this TV will do the same. It will be a games console, an iPTV (cable) box, a TV, an entertainment system and an app hub, in one sexy and profitable piece of hardware that will sell (in the grand scheme of thing) quite well, I believe.

Edited by Ireland - 11/20/12 at 1:16pm

Don't forget the Mac Pro.

.

The 3D where objects fly out at you, yes. The 3D that adds depth (the way we really see) might end up being more than a gimmick.

Well said...I agree if I'm going to put money into "screen size," it will be only one TV and it will be the largest TV I can afford. (I would love it to be an Apple TV). For everything else, I'll go with the iP5, iPad mini, and a MBA 11." If I need a large computer screen to do something...I really don't want to be doing it! :)

Panasonic is listed in a November 16, 2012 eWeek article as one of ten IT/Technology consumer electronics companies that just don't get today's customers. For years now, all it took was two eyes to see that Panasonic is so yesterday that it makes yesterday look like last year. As for plasma displays, they are heavy, power-hungry, and pressure sensitive. Plasma has its fans, but the days when it was a major player in the display market are long gone.

 

But, I digress. This whole discussion sounds an awful lot a dumbed-down version of the same discussion following rumors of an Apple television set earlier this year. It is important to go back to basics. What is the problem that an Apple TV set is supposed to solve? So many posters seem glued to the notion that the problem is content delivery. This is simply not the case. In the USA, we have several cable companies including the fiber lines from the two biggest phone companies in the country. These alone, bring up to 1000s of simultaneous content streams into our homes. We have two major satellite providers, plus several smaller ones. Even our broadcast stations provide in excess of 50 simultaneous content streams to homes in many markets. We have streaming content from too many web-based providers to count. Among these are Apple's own iTunes Music Store. We also have offline delivery via Blu-ray, DVD, and video gaming.

 

Content is not the problem. Content management is the problem. I have no idea what Apple has in mind as its solution to this problem. However, the solution lies in iOS. We already have remote control emulators in the form of iOS apps. Obviously, these apps allow iPhones and iPads to control non-Apple TVs and other devices. By adding two-way communication between an iOS-based TV and an iOS-base remote control/content management device, we create a new world. Every content source can appear on the remote as a thumbnail icon with animated preview. A no-brainer is to build the program guide into the remote.

 

To gain the maximum leverage from this scheme, new Apple-sponsored protocols must be adopted by manufacturers of video games, Blu-ray players, and STBs. New cabling technologies will probably also be required. [Isn't Thunderbolt here already?] Ideally, I would like to see the TV or the content management device replace cable/satellite STBs and DVRs.

 

The bottomline is that we need to stop trying to predict yesterday's sunrise.

You left out the X-Mac.

I have seen it... sort of. I haven't sat down and watched a full movie so I am not claiming anything absolute. But from watching movies in the cinema I know that after the initial 'wow', its back to the story. I am not at all against 3d it just seems like an unnecessary thing. IMAX, yes, retina, yes, 3d... not so much. Each to his own and I am sure there will always be a market, but for me the increased realism tends to illuminate the artefacts and by so doing draw attention to technique and technicalities and ultimately get in the way of the story. I also don't like wearing silly glasses. 

If you work with multiple apps and multiple windows within each app, as well as multiple panels and such, nothing beats a 27" iMac. The ideal combo for me is a large iMac and an iPad (any). If it weren't for the many apps crowding my workspaces I'd be with you except I'd make the MBA 13". 

But it's not about specs, right?

Re Apple TV set. Implement complete voice control (Siri).

 

"TV turn on"

"TV what's on tonight?"

"TV change to Channel x"

"TV switch to Blu-ray"

"TV record xxx while I'm out"

"TV turn off"

 

That's the differentiator. Screw a 55" LCD with an iPod Touch as a remote.

I agree but how does one monetize content management?

Hilarious. He actually forgot the launch of the new Mac Pro, the only core product launch that is actually confirmed.

 

The move to 16:9 aspect ratios in the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch is something I hope does not happen with the iPad. 16:9 may be fine for video but it is really lacking with almost ever other use. It's as though they want us to read books on legal paper. The 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPads give you more useable space and can be used in both portrait and landscape modes in a reasonable way. Unfortunately almost every tablet has gone 16:9. It's really a step backwards.

 

philip