or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple television predicted to headline three core product launches in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 202
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post
A quality 55" plasma lists for ~$2500.

 

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


Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I would guess they would jump in with a 50" and an 80" model only at $1,999 and $2,999.

 

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.

 

Originally Posted by ecs View Post
The three most needed core product launches:

 

1- New Mac Pro

2- New Mac Pro

3- New Mac Pro

 

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. lol.gif

post #42 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Why have one TV with game changing services when it can be done cheaper and on multiple TVs?

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. 

post #43 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

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?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 202

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.

post #45 of 202

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.

post #46 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

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.
post #47 of 202
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...

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #48 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That I did not know. No wonder why Roku does so well.

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


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?

 

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.

post #49 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

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...

 

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.

post #50 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


And super thin and elegant TVs don't exist now? Why just the living room? Why not the bedroom? Most people already own multiple TVs. A Apple TV with a app store could be on every TV in the house not just the living room.

 

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). 

post #51 of 202
...Munster expects Apple to hold an event around March of next year to launch a new radio service to compete with Pandora.

 

2013 - streaming radio service ("Pingdora?")

 

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

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #52 of 202
MAC PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
post #53 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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). 

 

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

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #54 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

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...
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
post #55 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

 

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.


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.

post #56 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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). 
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
post #57 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


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?

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.

post #58 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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). 

1)Wrong
2)Wrong
3)Wrong
4)Agree
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

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

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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Don't laugh, it wouldn't be the first time I heard rumors of a Tesla partnership. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hey, I'd actually be fine with that.

 

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

post #61 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And LCDs are cheaper than plasma, anyway. Apple wouldn't use plasma.

 

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).

post #62 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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).

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

post #64 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

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). 

 

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.  

post #65 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

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

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.

post #66 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You know what? Whatever. They want to build things based on rumors and what people tell them they want, it's their funeral.

 

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...

 

Quote:
but the most important feature will be the ability to use the TV as the main interface for the living room across multiple devices

 

...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
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #67 of 202
Don't forget the Mac Pro.
post #68 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

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

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.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #69 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

 

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.

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! :)

post #70 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


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.

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.

post #71 of 202

You left out the X-Mac.1wink.gif

post #72 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.

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. 

post #73 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

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! :)

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". 

post #74 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

He expects a so-called "iPhone 5S" that would be a "modest upgrade" from the current iPhone 5, with a faster processor, more RAM and a better camera.

But it's not about specs, right?

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #75 of 202

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.

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #76 of 202
The resolution used for the iPhone 5 was the base on a long debate, Apple hasn't considered useful to propose a standard resolution as its concurrency (720P for example).

The main reason was Apple's refusal to modify the OS interface, so what could be the iPad Mini Retina's resolution 1confused.gif
post #77 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Content is not the problem. Content management is the problem.

I agree but how does one monetize content management?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 202

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

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #79 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

iPad Mini w/ Retina in Spring (I think more May/June)- I agree- and can't wait to buy.

iPad redesign next year- duh.  Of course it will look like the iPhone and mini.  The 9.7" iPad looks like a relic next to the amazing design of the 5/mini.

5S- of course. 

 

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

post #80 of 202

It is strange that they don't mention anything about the MacPro on this "predictions" as Tim Cook wrote a letter to users stating that apple is "working on something really great" for the MacPro and that it will be coming on 2013. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple television predicted to headline three core product launches in 2013