Munster has been barking up this tree for years, and for years, I've said he's full of it. There's nothing Apple can bring to the television set that it can't solve with AppleTV... Even the TV interface if it wanted to... Just add throughput to it, and now you're watching TV through Apple's box with Apple's UI.
It doesn't work because you need to wear glasses and the glasses give people a headache for various technical reasons I won't get into. 3D is basically a glasses (or some kind of headgear) based tech.
When the technology is finally completely contained within the glasses, it might catch on, but then everyone will look like Geordie Laforge, so there's that to consider.
Sorry, but didn't I say glassless?
Glassless 3d gadgets are coming (Nintendo 3ds, LG Optimus, HTC, Sharp, etc). And it does have a lot of sense, since the autostereoscopic technology (based on parallax barrier) works much better for mobile devices because they do not require 180 viewing angle as big TVs do.
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
Also Apple would have to make it a matte screen or some kind of anti glare which they don't seem to be into these days.
It would be very nice I am sure but doesn't seem to fit into the direction they going in right now when it comes to any of their displays.
Good points! Yep Apple does seem to do only glossy screens. I do think that any TV manufacturer would love to make the TV's for Apple. Manufacturers are scrambling to have "something" to differentiate themselves from the other TV manufacturers and having Apple "inside" (Bom bom bom bommm-thankyou) could be just the trick. They would look at it as a premium product and as you say, get premium pricing...plus Stevo could tell Schmidt to stick it up his nose so to speak where Apple succeeds with a TV and Google fails, again! Best
Exactly .... with "TiVo" and a TV tuner built in ..... and then sell an app for each channel that you want on a subscription basis ..... it's a no brainer. ... lol
Wouldn't the imac essentially be the TV in the diagram already? Dumbest rumor ever and it would make no sense for Apple to pursue a full blown TV. What would it be an imac without OSX? HUH?
We've seen this guy push this rumor a million times before. UGH you'd think he'd find something original to talk about. May I suggest and Apple branded appliances instead? I want Ikitchen and ilaundry.
3D is a fad that you will be embarrassed to have supported a few years from now when it disappears again.
I'm old enough to remember the last time 3D was supposed to be in everyone's TV "next year" and major motion pictures were being released using the technology. I'm also old enough to remember being told about the time before that (when it was used for major motion picture releases and supposed to be on your TV "next year"), by my Mother.
Both times it never happened because it's basically just a tired old gimmick. It doesn't work because you need to wear glasses and the glasses give people a headache for various technical reasons I won't get into. 3D is basically a glasses (or some kind of headgear) based tech.
When the technology is finally completely contained within the glasses, it might catch on, but then everyone will look like Geordie Laforge, so there's that to consider.
Am I reading your post wrong? "3D sucks because you have to wear glasses" ... "If the whole 3D thing was just in the glasses, it coulc catch on".
Those seem completely contradictory. To me, the only way it'll really catch on is to eliminate the glasses alltogether. If I'm not mistaken, this has been developed in a limited way, but you need to be directly in front of the set. I see that as being the path to success in the 3D TV market. No glasses whatsoever.
as much as i want to call munster an asshole, this will happen. of course when you leave yourself a window from late 2012 to future, any electronics company still standing 5-10 years from now will introduce a tv too. no big deal. just like the tablet invasion right now, they will all disappear in a year except for a few winners.
apple could introduce a tv with an appletv built-in today but what will they do about content? they need more than some movie and tv show rentals. they need to lure in the greedy / failing cable companies and/or studios directly just like they did with the record labels. then they can take over those distribution channels too for better or worse.
Interesting, but no way in a million years is anyone going to pay "$50-$90" a month for an iTunes pass. Even if the iTunes pass could replace all other sources for the consumer, it wouldn't be worth that and in reality, one is still going to need the blu-ray player, and most of the other sources and the gear to support them.
Any "replace your current setup" solutions from Apple will pretty much have to replace *everything* and also be cheaper than any one individual component that's currently in use to catch on.
and the picture is wrong
$299 for a PS3 which includes a nice blu ray player. and only idiots buy DVR's when you can rent for $13 a month from your cable company
Agreed, would be a dumb move by Apple & I think they know it. Apple TV standalone for 99 bucks can't be beat.
I could see them inventing some new wireless ways to get audio & video from the ATV to TVs though, they would be AirPlay compatible TVs or something like that. Then the only cable an ATV would have would be power.
Gee whiz guys, seriously ... it's moronic for anyone to say "Apple shouldn't or Apple has no reason to ..." etc. We've heard this all before and what happened?
remember when Apple had no good reason to sell an MP3 player?
remember when Apple had no good reason to sell a tablet computer?
think of a television running iOS with App Store/iTunes built-in and the ability to purchase/rent/download all types of media on a big ass screen ... you don't think that wouldn't be the next big thing on everybody's Christmas list?
Apple TV right now is still a "hobby" according to Jobs. But think what that might look like if Apple turned it's hobby into a real business. It ain't that hard to imagine really, just start connecting the dots.
no, because most people already have a blu-ray player or game console that does all these things. i know someone that bought an internet TV and these people never use the features. they were either sold them by best buy or they wanted the entire feature list just to have
and TV prices are always falling. the $1300 47" TV someone i know bought back in July is $899 now on clearance with a blu ray player included. only way apple could make money is to only sell the biggest screens
Some of you have touched on why Apple will not be giving us TVs in the near future, but the primary reason is they can't distribute all the content they need to have available.
WHEN Apple can broadcast all live events LIVE and distribute EVERYTHING else easily (either by subscription or ala carte), THEN we will see the possibility of an Apple HD TV.
If Apple HDTV were available today, NONE of it's faithful would be hosting Super Bowl parties this weekend. Why? Because Apple wouldn't have the content available.
But you know what? IF Apple HAD that kind of content available they could make every TV into an Apple HD TV via an iPad or a more advanced Apple TV, so there would be no need for the TV we are discussing.
Content is the key here. Nothing can happen (that we really want) until it's ALL available.
Why would Apple make an Apple branded TV when they could just put a dock connector on Apple TV and wait for manufacturers to support it. Then you would just buy a TV with an Apple TV dock and slide your Apple TV into the dock and you'd have a 50" Apple TV.
Comments
(Oh, forgot, Apple doesn't care about its computer products anymore)
-Clive
It doesn't work because you need to wear glasses and the glasses give people a headache for various technical reasons I won't get into. 3D is basically a glasses (or some kind of headgear) based tech.
When the technology is finally completely contained within the glasses, it might catch on, but then everyone will look like Geordie Laforge, so there's that to consider.
Sorry, but didn't I say glassless?
Glassless 3d gadgets are coming (Nintendo 3ds, LG Optimus, HTC, Sharp, etc). And it does have a lot of sense, since the autostereoscopic technology (based on parallax barrier) works much better for mobile devices because they do not require 180 viewing angle as big TVs do.
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
Also Apple would have to make it a matte screen or some kind of anti glare which they don't seem to be into these days.
It would be very nice I am sure but doesn't seem to fit into the direction they going in right now when it comes to any of their displays.
Good points! Yep Apple does seem to do only glossy screens. I do think that any TV manufacturer would love to make the TV's for Apple. Manufacturers are scrambling to have "something" to differentiate themselves from the other TV manufacturers and having Apple "inside" (Bom bom bom bommm-thankyou) could be just the trick. They would look at it as a premium product and as you say, get premium pricing...plus Stevo could tell Schmidt to stick it up his nose so to speak where Apple succeeds with a TV and Google fails, again! Best
or they can just make an even bigger iMac
Exactly .... with "TiVo" and a TV tuner built in ..... and then sell an app for each channel that you want on a subscription basis ..... it's a no brainer. ... lol
-iPad 3 will have a retina display so HD content will be amazing
-The avg American home has 3 TVs (that's the old model)
-In 10 years the avg American home will have 1 TV and 3 iPads (that's the new model)
We will see higher ipad resolutions before apple sells a TV. We will see higher iMac resolutions before apple sells a tv.
Would love to see Apple give Crestron and Extron a run for their money!
Wish Apple would get into the automation/control market. One quick way is to buy Savant out: http://www.savantav.com/
Would love to see Apple give Crestron and Extron a run for their money!
Brilliant! Pretty cool stuff.
We've seen this guy push this rumor a million times before. UGH you'd think he'd find something original to talk about. May I suggest and Apple branded appliances instead? I want Ikitchen and ilaundry.
3D is a fad that you will be embarrassed to have supported a few years from now when it disappears again.
I'm old enough to remember the last time 3D was supposed to be in everyone's TV "next year" and major motion pictures were being released using the technology. I'm also old enough to remember being told about the time before that (when it was used for major motion picture releases and supposed to be on your TV "next year"), by my Mother.
Both times it never happened because it's basically just a tired old gimmick. It doesn't work because you need to wear glasses and the glasses give people a headache for various technical reasons I won't get into. 3D is basically a glasses (or some kind of headgear) based tech.
When the technology is finally completely contained within the glasses, it might catch on, but then everyone will look like Geordie Laforge, so there's that to consider.
Am I reading your post wrong? "3D sucks because you have to wear glasses" ... "If the whole 3D thing was just in the glasses, it coulc catch on".
Those seem completely contradictory. To me, the only way it'll really catch on is to eliminate the glasses alltogether. If I'm not mistaken, this has been developed in a limited way, but you need to be directly in front of the set. I see that as being the path to success in the 3D TV market. No glasses whatsoever.
apple could introduce a tv with an appletv built-in today but what will they do about content? they need more than some movie and tv show rentals. they need to lure in the greedy / failing cable companies and/or studios directly just like they did with the record labels. then they can take over those distribution channels too for better or worse.
Yea, yea - Gene has maybe always, in a sense, sorta been 'out there'
Perhaps covering Apple for 20 odd years will do that
But must say - a few of these comments about took my breath away
Please - some of you tell us what you REALLY think about the Man
.
Regardless of the veracity of this particular prediction
The 'idea' is valid - that 'something' is going on - maybe in TV, maybe not
We'll see in time
.
What we do know from this report, and it keeps showing itself over and over
To all the Folks who constantly byatch about Apple sitting on a pile of cash
"Apple, give us a dividend. Apple, lower your prices. Apple, do something with that money"
Well - here we go - and $3.9 Billion ain't chump change
.
WHATEVER Apple's plan - we'll find out when ready, but be sure of this
It will be - as Dave said
"Something Wonderful"
.
P.S.
Ok, here's example of what we can expect in the future from "whatever" this may be
(and found this Story/Link via MacSurfer, bit surprised Insider not picked it up)
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...ago/1296750375
Again, Apple's aiming for where the puck WILL be
Are times when that can be very tough to "see" until it happens
And until we're able to look back
.
Interesting, but no way in a million years is anyone going to pay "$50-$90" a month for an iTunes pass. Even if the iTunes pass could replace all other sources for the consumer, it wouldn't be worth that and in reality, one is still going to need the blu-ray player, and most of the other sources and the gear to support them.
Any "replace your current setup" solutions from Apple will pretty much have to replace *everything* and also be cheaper than any one individual component that's currently in use to catch on.
and the picture is wrong
$299 for a PS3 which includes a nice blu ray player. and only idiots buy DVR's when you can rent for $13 a month from your cable company
Munster is on drugs.
Agreed, would be a dumb move by Apple & I think they know it. Apple TV standalone for 99 bucks can't be beat.
I could see them inventing some new wireless ways to get audio & video from the ATV to TVs though, they would be AirPlay compatible TVs or something like that. Then the only cable an ATV would have would be power.
Gee whiz guys, seriously ... it's moronic for anyone to say "Apple shouldn't or Apple has no reason to ..." etc. We've heard this all before and what happened?
remember when Apple had no good reason to sell an MP3 player?
remember when Apple had no good reason to sell a tablet computer?
think of a television running iOS with App Store/iTunes built-in and the ability to purchase/rent/download all types of media on a big ass screen ... you don't think that wouldn't be the next big thing on everybody's Christmas list?
Apple TV right now is still a "hobby" according to Jobs. But think what that might look like if Apple turned it's hobby into a real business. It ain't that hard to imagine really, just start connecting the dots.
no, because most people already have a blu-ray player or game console that does all these things. i know someone that bought an internet TV and these people never use the features. they were either sold them by best buy or they wanted the entire feature list just to have
and TV prices are always falling. the $1300 47" TV someone i know bought back in July is $899 now on clearance with a blu ray player included. only way apple could make money is to only sell the biggest screens
As far as Apple is concerned the iPad IS the future of TV.
-iPad 3 will have a retina display so HD content will be amazing
-The avg American home has 3 TVs (that's the old model)
-In 10 years the avg American home will have 1 TV and 3 iPads (that's the new model)
Spot on... that's why TV sizes have moved from 27" to 40" to 50" to 60" in response to consumer demand.
An iPad would be just grrrrrreatt.
WHEN Apple can broadcast all live events LIVE and distribute EVERYTHING else easily (either by subscription or ala carte), THEN we will see the possibility of an Apple HD TV.
If Apple HDTV were available today, NONE of it's faithful would be hosting Super Bowl parties this weekend. Why? Because Apple wouldn't have the content available.
But you know what? IF Apple HAD that kind of content available they could make every TV into an Apple HD TV via an iPad or a more advanced Apple TV, so there would be no need for the TV we are discussing.
Content is the key here. Nothing can happen (that we really want) until it's ALL available.
If I were Apple, that's what I'd be working on.