HDMI can carry audio, yet downgrade to DVI. DVI doesn't carry audio, therefore can't entirely upgrade to HDMI without audio cables.
DVI can do dual-link. HDMI cannot (????). DisplayPort can with expensive adaptor, or achieve the same with a DP monitor. If you want >1080p resolutions you'll need the adaptor or the expensive Apple monitor. More $$$ -> Apple.
At least the HDMI port is standard, unlike the mini-DVI thing Apple used before.
SJ said something about having a great lineup of new products
since the displays haven't been updated in nearly 2 years, I'm betting that they won't be updated, but rather morph into 3D HDTV and high-quality speakers with screen sizes starting at 30 and have the box incorporated, which goes along with SJ's loathing of extra cables
It could be interesting
I mostly agree. Apple is going to remove what's left of the line between TV and Monitor. I don't expect 3D, though. 3D is a marketing gimmick that will fail.
I said this in another post (tried looking for it but i guess i have to re-type it). With Apple's current relationship with ATT as it stands today. I could easily see Apple partnering with ATT's U-Verse Cable group to produce a product that is subsidized through ATT and Apple does the rest. The UI, the App/iTunes Store, iOS4 (or whatever the current release is), A DVR that works with the UI and U-Verse. It seems like a very plausible scenario. Just like the iPhone, Apple would use it's own UI to do TV, like the YouTube app you'd have your Cable TV App.
But, one big hurdle would have to be overcome:
1. Pay-per-view. ATT and other cable companies rely pretty heavily on PPV TV programming, and the iTunes Store would take a big chunck out of that with Rentals, the Hulu and Netflix Apps as well.
But still, i think this is VERY plausible...
The TV and Home Entertainment hardware industry is too flexible on price than i believe Apple is willing to compete with. Look at the prices of HDTV's since 2005. I bought a 37" flat panel HDTV in 2005 for $2300. Today you can buy one almost identical, save for some updated features like internet access, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc built-in. It can cost you around 50-70% of the 2005 figures.
Now, looking at the History of how Apple prices it's devices, I just don't see the same flexibility. Apple's Hardware (save for the iPod and iPhone) have been relatively stable in the last 5 years. The iMac, MacBooks have all been priced at a point where they have gone down a little, but not 50%. The home entertainment hardware industry is way too cut-throat on price for Apple. Granted this is a company that primarily caters to the upper echelon markets, but with the invention of the iPod and the iPhone, that has changed slightly.
Personally, i'd rather see Apple tackle the HT STB first before diving into TV's. If they charged $2000 for a TV that replaved all our components, it would have to be pretty darn compelling. There are too many video/audio-philes out there (even in the base market) that would not buy into this. Look at Bose. They have tried over the past 20 years to simplify the Home theater down to it's basic components, not without a struggle, and even now their product still don't sell the kind of numbers that Apple would need to stay competitive in this market.
Think of all the different technologies Apple would have to invest in to make a quality product. Blu-ray (which SJ has been known to frown on physical media), Surround Sound receiver and amplification technology, TV HD tuner technology, etc. That's a lot of junk under the hood, and i'm not sure how willing Ives and Jobs are to play with all these different technologies. Plus, like computers, the monitor is the last thing that ever needs to be replaced. A STB is much more likely. I could see an STB, like what Sony and Bose are trying to market (with relative degrees of success).
Show me a STB that replaced my Cable, Blu-ray, Surrond sound revicer and Game Console (which i own non becase my computer works better for that), and i would be curious, but not 100% convinced.
DisplayPort can with expensive adaptor, or achieve the same with a DP monitor. If you want >1080p resolutions you'll need the adaptor or the expensive Apple monitor. More $$$ -> Apple.
It's all cooper. mDP and DP is newer so until recently audio of DP wasn't a concern for cable and adapter makers who cut corners to make cheaper products by excluding the wiring for audio.
In some ways mDP and DP is less expensive than HDMI as an interface stanadard because DP is free and HDMi has associated licensing costs.
The Mac Mini does audio over both mDP and HDMI. It can also output to DVI via the mDP or HDMI.
Despite being newer to the market, therefore less used causing prices to be higher per unit these adapters are still inexpensive. The only caveat that is now being rectified by the mid-2010 Mac updates is the inclusion of audio support in the cable and adapters. Apple Store sells the only adapter I know of that supports audio and it's $35. This won't last long as it's just cooper.
As for these "expensive Apple monitors", DP nor mDP are NOT an Apple standards. Dell hit the market with DP-capable monitors before Apple did and high-end graphic cards use them as well as other PC vendors. It might be the last cooper-based system for display technology we'll see but it's here to stay and will only gain in popularity.
I would rephrase as " there isn't a viable market for closed set top boxes."
There are set-top boxes that can play verious free internet media, rent from Amazon, play Netflix, etc, but not play your iTunes video content. And some of those can even play your existing optical media and/or serve as DVRs. Then there is Apple's set-top box that will play your iTunes content and Utube, but little else (without hacking or a LOT of work to rip your DVDs).
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
I'm going to guess that most of the guesses made here and elsewhere are not even close to the mark. Based on nothing but Apple's history, I'd predict that their next move in this market will be an effort to redefine it fundamentally. Either that, or they won't be bothered. If they do anything, it will be bold and controversial, not timid, incremental or obvious.
Monitors (or as the pundits seem to be implying, 'TVs') are a commodity item. Low margins, high warehousing costs. In addition, they are not 'one size fits all', the way peripherals are. Where is Apple going to display the variety of monitors necessary to serve the wide variety of needs out there? Scrap and rebuild ALL of the Apple Stores?
Come one... this is what Best Buy is for.
Oh, is that what they are for? I've been wondering...
I would rephrase as " there isn't a viable market for closed set top boxes."
There are set-top boxes that can play verious free internet media, rent from Amazon, play Netflix, etc, but not play your iTunes video content. And some of those can even play your existing optical media and/or serve as DVRs. Then there is Apple's set-top box that will play your iTunes content and Utube, but little else (without hacking or a LOT of work to rip your DVDs).
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
yes! whatever, and ifever Apple comes up with something soon, they need to re-invent universal standards for media. I think this is the biggest failure of Blu-ray. All these video Codec's you ahve to constantly update your device to play. Drives me crazy!!! Personally, i think the Google platform for this is very plausible in the fact that it is so open to all things, but that will be viable until universal standards come out. Plus, the ability to download movies and media we ALREADY HAVE to these devices must be Paramount!!!
Apple TV App Store, but wouldn't that be the equivalent to an iOS Mac?
In what way? Mac is a brand of PC that runs Mac OS on Intel-based CPUs. iOS is their version of OS X for ARM CPUs. Having an TV App Store is simply a way to get apps designed for a 10-foot user interface that has to be controllable by a remote control, not an attached keyboard and mouse, the way Apple engineered the iPhone and iPad to be ideal for the user's interaction.
I am doubtful it will happen, but for it to work it has to be its own entity. Mac apps, iPhone apps and iPad apps simply won't work an TV. Even iPhone apps on the iPad are poor.
I can't see Apple doing much of anything else. It's not like you can go around the cable companies and get your own STB. And there's no one MSO who dominates (or even has 50% of the market, right?) So for all the reasons Jobs stated in that interview, I can't see Apple getting involved.
And as others have posted, I definitely don't see Apple producing their own HDTV. There's too much competition, too little margin and prices are falling dramatically. And except in the area of setup, configuration and UI, I don't see Apple bringing much unique to the table.
The one thing Apple could bring to the party is designing a much better UI for set top boxes. But I can't see Apple being willing to sell that UI to the MSOs and the STB manufacturers probably wouldn't be too cooperative in supplying SDKs or documentation to Apple.
So I'm puzzled as to what Apple might be doing. But that's Apple: they create new industries out of their unique way of looking at things. Then after they do it, everyone claims how obvious it was and how Apple didn't do everything they should have. Then it sells millions.
One thing of note: there's a new networking standard that was announced earlier this week for A/V, supported by Valens Semiconductor, LG, Samsung and Sony called HDBaseT 1.0. It carries HD video, audio, power, data and control ("5Play") over one cable, however looking at the spec, I don't see that many advantages over HDMI, aside from using standard networking cable. The Alliance is talking about adoption in 2011, but I can't see it happening, if at all, until 2012 or 2013. I'm not sure what all this has to with Apple and Apple doesn't usually endorse standards it doesn't create or drive in the first place, but who knows? I think Apple might be attracted to the supposed simplicity, although I'm not sure the point of pushing a new wired networking standard at a time when wireless is certainly the future.
All I know is that Apple better not treat the "hobbyists" who bought the original ATV like pee-ons by deprecating them from receiving any of these purported updates.
I live down the street from Apple HQ, and it only takes 10 minutes for me to drive down there and throw my ATV out the window and into their main entrance foyer.
And as others have posted, I definitely don't see Apple producing their own HDTV. There's too much competition, too little margin and prices are falling dramatically. And except in the area of setup, configuration and UI, I don't see Apple bringing much unique to the table.
They didn't really re-invent anything, just a way to make things more accessible to people. The iPod didn't re-invent the music industry, just made it more accessible to people. The iPhone didn't re-invent smartphones, they just made it easier to use and more integrated into our lives. That's why i think, looking into the existing partnerships Apple has, we will see a STB with iOS4 soon, and possibly partnered with ATT and U-Verse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
The one thing Apple could bring to the party is designing a much better UI for set top boxes. But I can't see Apple being willing to sell that UI to the MSOs and the STB manufacturers probably wouldn't be too cooperative in supplying SDKs or documentation to Apple.
That is exactly what Google intends on doing with the GoogleTV OS they are introducing soon...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
One thing of note: there's a new networking standard that was announced earlier this week for A/V, supported by Valens Semiconductor, LG, Samsung and Sony called HDBaseT 1.0. It carries HD video, audio, power, data and control ("5Play") over one cable, however looking at the spec, I don't see that many advantages over HDMI, aside from using standard networking cable. The Alliance is talking about adoption in 2011, but I can't see it happening, if at all, until 2012 or 2013. I'm not sure what all this has to with Apple and Apple doesn't usually endorse standards it doesn't create or drive in the first place, but who knows? I think Apple might be attracted to the supposed simplicity, although I'm not sure the point of pushing a new wired networking standard at a time when wireless is certainly the future.
Are you freakin' kidding me??? I really hope this doesn't come to be. HDMI is like what, 5 years old now as the standard? That shit drives me crazy! All these companies, constantly changing the rules to sell more products quicker! Geesh!
I don't see Apple selling TV's in the near future, it's not their modus operandi.
But I do see a huge (HUGE) business for apps for an iOS/A4 based set top box. Many of the iPhone/iPad apps would be able to be ported to ATV with little effort. You would need a BT keyboard and mouse perhaps. They could even make an iMouse(c) that would act as a stylus for video games and such with accelerometers, gyros and a touchpad. Put a dual-core Apple processor with updated graphics in there and you would have a pretty good game machine!
All I know is that Apple better not treat the "hobbyists" who bought the original ATV like pee-ons by deprecating them from receiving any of these purported updates.
I live down the street from Apple HQ, and it only takes 10 minutes for me to drive down there and throw my ATV out the window and into their main entrance foyer.
The TV came out over 3 years ago. By the time this new TV ships it'll be at least 3.5 years and likely pushing 4 years. How long should Apple keep supporting such old HW?
I think 3 years is more than adequate. Especially considering the expense and effort to mirror the current OS running on Intel with a new OS running on ARM, where the old HW can't do much of what the new HW will be capable of. Best to just leave it to a final bug fix, maybe add some simple feature(s) to placate people that expect infinite rich updates and then move forward with the new product.
Seriously! They stopped supporting PPC Macs with Snow Leopard and there were many millions of those on the market and some were sold under 3 years prior for thousands of dollars, so it's silly to expect a $220 box that they don't make much profit on and didn't a great deal of to get some sort backwards compatibly treatment when it's clearly not feasible.
They didn't really re-invent anything, just a way to make things more accessible to people. The iPod didn't re-invent the music industry, just made it more accessible to people. The iPhone didn't re-invent smartphones, they just made it easier to use and more integrated into our lives. That's why i think, looking into the existing partnerships Apple has, we will see a STB with iOS4 soon, and possibly partnered with ATT and U-Verse.
I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Apple redefined all of the markets you cite, by taking them in new directions. No small thing. This is why I think whatever they do in the TV market won't be any more obvious than their previous efforts. If they can't redefine a market, they won't get into that market. We should know that about Apple already.
SJ said something about having a great lineup of new products
since the displays haven't been updated in nearly 2 years, I'm betting that they won't be updated, but rather morph into 3D HDTV and high-quality speakers with screen sizes starting at 30 and have the box incorporated, which goes along with SJ's loathing of extra cables
It could be interesting
You know what would be sweet is a 30 pin dock on the bottom of the display. The iPhone or the Touch or the new mini Apple TV which could control and charge etc. But the current 30 cinema has much higher resolution than any HDTV.
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
I fully agree. My TV can already stream media without a box, been there, done that. Since it can't even play DVDs I'll stick to my current PC setup that plays DVDs, music, etc. and TV that already streams.
is the living room going to slowly become a thing of the past?
Just as the mobile phone has relegated 'home' and 'office' to anywhere you want it to be, will networked content do the same for the living room?
Discuss in less than 500 pages.
Reminds me of a scene in Friends where Joey meets someone that says they didn't have a television growing up. Joey's response was, "well, what does all your living room furniture point at?"
Seriously, though, I think there will always be a need to have a room where you view content of some sort. Comfort of seating, the social aspect - those requirements won't go away.
I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Apple redefined all of the markets you cite, by taking them in new directions. No small thing. This is why I think whatever they do in the TV market won't be any more obvious than their previous efforts. If they can't redefine a market, they won't get into that market. We should know that about Apple already.
i'm not sure what you mean by bigger picture?
The iPod was just the natural evolution of the portable music player. Before that, we did have MP3 Players. And i will argue that wasn't really a re-invention either, just the natural evolution of portable music players. All Apple did was market it in such a way to allow the music industry to gain sales back from people who turned to the black market illegal downloads. Ok, 99 cents per song was a brilliant move. The iTunes Store was a great way to sell it, but not a re-invention. It all boils down to the most compelling argument to obtaining (leagally) music. They didn't create a device that psycically transmits the music to our brain or anything that would fundimentally change how we listen to music. We used to listen in the car, at home, in the office, on trips on portable devices. Apple (and many before them) just allowed us to take a greater amount of it with us, on a smaller device. we don't have to plan on bringing the music we like with us becuase is all there, in the size of a deck of cards.
Comments
HDMI can carry audio, yet downgrade to DVI. DVI doesn't carry audio, therefore can't entirely upgrade to HDMI without audio cables.
DVI can do dual-link. HDMI cannot (????). DisplayPort can with expensive adaptor, or achieve the same with a DP monitor. If you want >1080p resolutions you'll need the adaptor or the expensive Apple monitor. More $$$ -> Apple.
At least the HDMI port is standard, unlike the mini-DVI thing Apple used before.
SJ said something about having a great lineup of new products
since the displays haven't been updated in nearly 2 years, I'm betting that they won't be updated, but rather morph into 3D HDTV and high-quality speakers with screen sizes starting at 30 and have the box incorporated, which goes along with SJ's loathing of extra cables
It could be interesting
I mostly agree. Apple is going to remove what's left of the line between TV and Monitor. I don't expect 3D, though. 3D is a marketing gimmick that will fail.
But, one big hurdle would have to be overcome:
1. Pay-per-view. ATT and other cable companies rely pretty heavily on PPV TV programming, and the iTunes Store would take a big chunck out of that with Rentals, the Hulu and Netflix Apps as well.
But still, i think this is VERY plausible...
The TV and Home Entertainment hardware industry is too flexible on price than i believe Apple is willing to compete with. Look at the prices of HDTV's since 2005. I bought a 37" flat panel HDTV in 2005 for $2300. Today you can buy one almost identical, save for some updated features like internet access, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc built-in. It can cost you around 50-70% of the 2005 figures.
Now, looking at the History of how Apple prices it's devices, I just don't see the same flexibility. Apple's Hardware (save for the iPod and iPhone) have been relatively stable in the last 5 years. The iMac, MacBooks have all been priced at a point where they have gone down a little, but not 50%. The home entertainment hardware industry is way too cut-throat on price for Apple. Granted this is a company that primarily caters to the upper echelon markets, but with the invention of the iPod and the iPhone, that has changed slightly.
Personally, i'd rather see Apple tackle the HT STB first before diving into TV's. If they charged $2000 for a TV that replaved all our components, it would have to be pretty darn compelling. There are too many video/audio-philes out there (even in the base market) that would not buy into this. Look at Bose. They have tried over the past 20 years to simplify the Home theater down to it's basic components, not without a struggle, and even now their product still don't sell the kind of numbers that Apple would need to stay competitive in this market.
Think of all the different technologies Apple would have to invest in to make a quality product. Blu-ray (which SJ has been known to frown on physical media), Surround Sound receiver and amplification technology, TV HD tuner technology, etc. That's a lot of junk under the hood, and i'm not sure how willing Ives and Jobs are to play with all these different technologies. Plus, like computers, the monitor is the last thing that ever needs to be replaced. A STB is much more likely. I could see an STB, like what Sony and Bose are trying to market (with relative degrees of success).
Show me a STB that replaced my Cable, Blu-ray, Surrond sound revicer and Game Console (which i own non becase my computer works better for that), and i would be curious, but not 100% convinced.
DisplayPort can with expensive adaptor, or achieve the same with a DP monitor. If you want >1080p resolutions you'll need the adaptor or the expensive Apple monitor. More $$$ -> Apple.
It's all cooper. mDP and DP is newer so until recently audio of DP wasn't a concern for cable and adapter makers who cut corners to make cheaper products by excluding the wiring for audio.
In some ways mDP and DP is less expensive than HDMI as an interface stanadard because DP is free and HDMi has associated licensing costs.
The Mac Mini does audio over both mDP and HDMI. It can also output to DVI via the mDP or HDMI.
Some basic adapter costs from Monoprice...
- $4.75 » http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
- $8.55 » http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
- $9.45 » http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
Despite being newer to the market, therefore less used causing prices to be higher per unit these adapters are still inexpensive. The only caveat that is now being rectified by the mid-2010 Mac updates is the inclusion of audio support in the cable and adapters. Apple Store sells the only adapter I know of that supports audio and it's $35. This won't last long as it's just cooper.As for these "expensive Apple monitors", DP nor mDP are NOT an Apple standards. Dell hit the market with DP-capable monitors before Apple did and high-end graphic cards use them as well as other PC vendors. It might be the last cooper-based system for display technology we'll see but it's here to stay and will only gain in popularity.
there isn't a viable market for set top boxes
I would rephrase as " there isn't a viable market for closed set top boxes."
There are set-top boxes that can play verious free internet media, rent from Amazon, play Netflix, etc, but not play your iTunes video content. And some of those can even play your existing optical media and/or serve as DVRs. Then there is Apple's set-top box that will play your iTunes content and Utube, but little else (without hacking or a LOT of work to rip your DVDs).
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
Well put.
Monitors (or as the pundits seem to be implying, 'TVs') are a commodity item. Low margins, high warehousing costs. In addition, they are not 'one size fits all', the way peripherals are. Where is Apple going to display the variety of monitors necessary to serve the wide variety of needs out there? Scrap and rebuild ALL of the Apple Stores?
Come one... this is what Best Buy is for.
Oh, is that what they are for? I've been wondering...
I would rephrase as " there isn't a viable market for closed set top boxes."
There are set-top boxes that can play verious free internet media, rent from Amazon, play Netflix, etc, but not play your iTunes video content. And some of those can even play your existing optical media and/or serve as DVRs. Then there is Apple's set-top box that will play your iTunes content and Utube, but little else (without hacking or a LOT of work to rip your DVDs).
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
yes! whatever, and ifever Apple comes up with something soon, they need to re-invent universal standards for media. I think this is the biggest failure of Blu-ray. All these video Codec's you ahve to constantly update your device to play. Drives me crazy!!! Personally, i think the Google platform for this is very plausible in the fact that it is so open to all things, but that will be viable until universal standards come out. Plus, the ability to download movies and media we ALREADY HAVE to these devices must be Paramount!!!
Apple TV App Store, but wouldn't that be the equivalent to an iOS Mac?
In what way? Mac is a brand of PC that runs Mac OS on Intel-based CPUs. iOS is their version of OS X for ARM CPUs. Having an TV App Store is simply a way to get apps designed for a 10-foot user interface that has to be controllable by a remote control, not an attached keyboard and mouse, the way Apple engineered the iPhone and iPad to be ideal for the user's interaction.
I am doubtful it will happen, but for it to work it has to be its own entity. Mac apps, iPhone apps and iPad apps simply won't work an TV. Even iPhone apps on the iPad are poor.
I can't see Apple doing much of anything else. It's not like you can go around the cable companies and get your own STB. And there's no one MSO who dominates (or even has 50% of the market, right?) So for all the reasons Jobs stated in that interview, I can't see Apple getting involved.
And as others have posted, I definitely don't see Apple producing their own HDTV. There's too much competition, too little margin and prices are falling dramatically. And except in the area of setup, configuration and UI, I don't see Apple bringing much unique to the table.
The one thing Apple could bring to the party is designing a much better UI for set top boxes. But I can't see Apple being willing to sell that UI to the MSOs and the STB manufacturers probably wouldn't be too cooperative in supplying SDKs or documentation to Apple.
So I'm puzzled as to what Apple might be doing. But that's Apple: they create new industries out of their unique way of looking at things. Then after they do it, everyone claims how obvious it was and how Apple didn't do everything they should have. Then it sells millions.
One thing of note: there's a new networking standard that was announced earlier this week for A/V, supported by Valens Semiconductor, LG, Samsung and Sony called HDBaseT 1.0. It carries HD video, audio, power, data and control ("5Play") over one cable, however looking at the spec, I don't see that many advantages over HDMI, aside from using standard networking cable. The Alliance is talking about adoption in 2011, but I can't see it happening, if at all, until 2012 or 2013. I'm not sure what all this has to with Apple and Apple doesn't usually endorse standards it doesn't create or drive in the first place, but who knows? I think Apple might be attracted to the supposed simplicity, although I'm not sure the point of pushing a new wired networking standard at a time when wireless is certainly the future.
I live down the street from Apple HQ, and it only takes 10 minutes for me to drive down there and throw my ATV out the window and into their main entrance foyer.
A better version of Apple TV? Maybe.
And as others have posted, I definitely don't see Apple producing their own HDTV. There's too much competition, too little margin and prices are falling dramatically. And except in the area of setup, configuration and UI, I don't see Apple bringing much unique to the table.
They didn't really re-invent anything, just a way to make things more accessible to people. The iPod didn't re-invent the music industry, just made it more accessible to people. The iPhone didn't re-invent smartphones, they just made it easier to use and more integrated into our lives. That's why i think, looking into the existing partnerships Apple has, we will see a STB with iOS4 soon, and possibly partnered with ATT and U-Verse.
The one thing Apple could bring to the party is designing a much better UI for set top boxes. But I can't see Apple being willing to sell that UI to the MSOs and the STB manufacturers probably wouldn't be too cooperative in supplying SDKs or documentation to Apple.
That is exactly what Google intends on doing with the GoogleTV OS they are introducing soon...
One thing of note: there's a new networking standard that was announced earlier this week for A/V, supported by Valens Semiconductor, LG, Samsung and Sony called HDBaseT 1.0. It carries HD video, audio, power, data and control ("5Play") over one cable, however looking at the spec, I don't see that many advantages over HDMI, aside from using standard networking cable. The Alliance is talking about adoption in 2011, but I can't see it happening, if at all, until 2012 or 2013. I'm not sure what all this has to with Apple and Apple doesn't usually endorse standards it doesn't create or drive in the first place, but who knows? I think Apple might be attracted to the supposed simplicity, although I'm not sure the point of pushing a new wired networking standard at a time when wireless is certainly the future.
Are you freakin' kidding me??? I really hope this doesn't come to be. HDMI is like what, 5 years old now as the standard? That shit drives me crazy! All these companies, constantly changing the rules to sell more products quicker! Geesh!
But I do see a huge (HUGE) business for apps for an iOS/A4 based set top box. Many of the iPhone/iPad apps would be able to be ported to ATV with little effort. You would need a BT keyboard and mouse perhaps. They could even make an iMouse(c) that would act as a stylus for video games and such with accelerometers, gyros and a touchpad. Put a dual-core Apple processor with updated graphics in there and you would have a pretty good game machine!
KRR
All I know is that Apple better not treat the "hobbyists" who bought the original ATV like pee-ons by deprecating them from receiving any of these purported updates.
I live down the street from Apple HQ, and it only takes 10 minutes for me to drive down there and throw my ATV out the window and into their main entrance foyer.
The TV came out over 3 years ago. By the time this new TV ships it'll be at least 3.5 years and likely pushing 4 years. How long should Apple keep supporting such old HW?
I think 3 years is more than adequate. Especially considering the expense and effort to mirror the current OS running on Intel with a new OS running on ARM, where the old HW can't do much of what the new HW will be capable of. Best to just leave it to a final bug fix, maybe add some simple feature(s) to placate people that expect infinite rich updates and then move forward with the new product.
Seriously! They stopped supporting PPC Macs with Snow Leopard and there were many millions of those on the market and some were sold under 3 years prior for thousands of dollars, so it's silly to expect a $220 box that they don't make much profit on and didn't a great deal of to get some sort backwards compatibly treatment when it's clearly not feasible.
They didn't really re-invent anything, just a way to make things more accessible to people. The iPod didn't re-invent the music industry, just made it more accessible to people. The iPhone didn't re-invent smartphones, they just made it easier to use and more integrated into our lives. That's why i think, looking into the existing partnerships Apple has, we will see a STB with iOS4 soon, and possibly partnered with ATT and U-Verse.
I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Apple redefined all of the markets you cite, by taking them in new directions. No small thing. This is why I think whatever they do in the TV market won't be any more obvious than their previous efforts. If they can't redefine a market, they won't get into that market. We should know that about Apple already.
SJ said something about having a great lineup of new products
since the displays haven't been updated in nearly 2 years, I'm betting that they won't be updated, but rather morph into 3D HDTV and high-quality speakers with screen sizes starting at 30 and have the box incorporated, which goes along with SJ's loathing of extra cables
It could be interesting
You know what would be sweet is a 30 pin dock on the bottom of the display. The iPhone or the Touch or the new mini Apple TV which could control and charge etc. But the current 30 cinema has much higher resolution than any HDTV.
...
People don't want a dozen different set-top boxes. Just like we didn't want both a VHS and Beta tape player. And we didn't want to have to have both HDVD and blu-ray boxes.
Unless Apple can make an AppleTV that can unify devices, I'll stick with my mini. It plays all my existing DVDs, my iTunes content, and any other internet content. The only drawback is Apple limiting the movies that are available to rent from iTunes (far more are on AppleTV than in the desktop iTunes app). But that's just Apple's lost revenue because I'll just go elsewhere for my rentals.
I fully agree. My TV can already stream media without a box, been there, done that. Since it can't even play DVDs I'll stick to my current PC setup that plays DVDs, music, etc. and TV that already streams.
is the living room going to slowly become a thing of the past?
Just as the mobile phone has relegated 'home' and 'office' to anywhere you want it to be, will networked content do the same for the living room?
Discuss in less than 500 pages.
Reminds me of a scene in Friends where Joey meets someone that says they didn't have a television growing up. Joey's response was, "well, what does all your living room furniture point at?"
Seriously, though, I think there will always be a need to have a room where you view content of some sort. Comfort of seating, the social aspect - those requirements won't go away.
I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Apple redefined all of the markets you cite, by taking them in new directions. No small thing. This is why I think whatever they do in the TV market won't be any more obvious than their previous efforts. If they can't redefine a market, they won't get into that market. We should know that about Apple already.
i'm not sure what you mean by bigger picture?
The iPod was just the natural evolution of the portable music player. Before that, we did have MP3 Players. And i will argue that wasn't really a re-invention either, just the natural evolution of portable music players. All Apple did was market it in such a way to allow the music industry to gain sales back from people who turned to the black market illegal downloads. Ok, 99 cents per song was a brilliant move. The iTunes Store was a great way to sell it, but not a re-invention. It all boils down to the most compelling argument to obtaining (leagally) music. They didn't create a device that psycically transmits the music to our brain or anything that would fundimentally change how we listen to music. We used to listen in the car, at home, in the office, on trips on portable devices. Apple (and many before them) just allowed us to take a greater amount of it with us, on a smaller device. we don't have to plan on bringing the music we like with us becuase is all there, in the size of a deck of cards.