I'll be in the market for a new HDTV next year... and would definitely consider getting one from Apple.
HOWEVER: It MUST support 3D (yes... I really do want it, for a number of reasons).... and it is hard for me to believe that Apple will do that.
If Apple comes out with a 3D fHDTV... I will buy it. Period.
Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.
I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.
Apple already makes an all-in-one with a monitor and a content delivery arrangement built in. It's called the iMac and it comes in two sizes, namely 21.5" and 27". The smaller set retails for $1,199 and the larger for $1,699.
So bring out a 40" iMac, retail it for $2,699, and $2,999. Voila an Apple-branded TV, even three of them if you consider the other iMac models as lesser versions of the new top-of-the-line models.
If convergence has happened, more or less, why not kill two birds with that proverbial one stone by simply making your all-in-one computer, in at least one version, large enough to serve as your main TV in the family room. I recently bought a new Mac Mini and decided to attach the old Mini to my main set. Really it's handy having it set up there in part because I didn't have a device attached that would have allowed me to access my Netflix account and now I do.
For a 40" set that includes a capable computer and good sound, one could make a case for something approaching $3,000, especially considering that one would be buying a TV and a computer that would cost something like that bought individually. But otherwise, this is some sort of joke. The days of $5,000 TVs are long gone. Even the sub-$1,000 sets now serve up terrific pictures when fed a decent signal through HDMI. The average consumer accustomed to bad signals is just not that picky.
So basically what I could see is Apple introducing a 40" iMac. Imagine the reflections you could get off that glossy screen.
Whether this rumor is true or not, I am not sure how successful Apple can be in the TV arena with their current technology approach. TVs are something most people buy every 5 - 10 years, as opposed to every 2 - 5 years that most people replace phones, computers and iPods.
Given that Apple incrementally improve their products regularly and rapidly, I'd be very reluctant to buy something from them that I'd expect to last 7 or 8 years, especially a first generation product. Apple won't be able to pull their usual trick of withholding some obvious features for the next generation if they want people to buy their TVs.
I have a rapidly aging 1080i CRT still dominating the living room, so am due for an upgrade - but will probably stick to a Mac Mini/Generic TV combination for now. I'd rather have to upgrade my Mini or an Apple TV (@ $99) in two years than a $5,000 TV.
And you were suggesting that Apple does exactly the same thing. Just copying Google is not the answer.
What Apple really needs to do is provide a better solution for input. It doesn't matter if AppleTV is a separate $99 box or built into an HDTV we need a better method of controlling smart TVs. Not a full qwerty keyboard as Google tried. Not an Apple remote with its minimal number of buttons. And not a $500 iPad. We need something new and something better suited for the task. It needs to be simple to use but still able to control complex apps. Hopefully Apple can find an answer.
Not really sold on HDTV's with built in stuff like this. Looking at the Apple TV, the first generation one no longer gets software updates. What happens when the media player part of the TV is outdated, do we toss the whole set and buy a new one? That, vs just replacing the media player and keeping your standard HDTV.
And if it gets Apple's usual port-hatred, sign me out. On a laptop I can live with it, on a TV absolutely not.
Just wanted to give you some inside info about these tv's
They will offer a new IPTV service from Apple. This is what their new data and upcoming data farms are really for.
Apple will make it so easy to watch tv now and in the future.
Buy, unbox, plug into outlet, plug into ethernet and turn on. No more set top boxes!
When you turn on tv, Apple will offer you a new tv experience you will be able to subscribe too. All your favorite channels, on demand movies, live sports and great apps that you can select on a sidebar or overlay live picture.
It will be a game changer in the tv industry.
OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product with a big screen, and since the current $99 AppleTV box runs a version of iOS, a subset of Mac OS X, won't the (hypothetical) Apple TV be a big-screen iMac without a DVD drive? Maybe without a hard drive but with a small SSD? Less RAM and the lower OS?
The lowest-spec 27-inch iMac costs $1,200. Dropping the DVD and HD and OS might bring this down to $1,000. You can get a Samsung 27-inch HDTV for $350. So Apple's higher-resolution screen etc. adds a $650 mark-up.
Samsung sells a 40-inch HDTV for around $1,000, a 46-inch HDTV for around $1,200 and a 46-inch "Smart TV". for $2,800. So Samsung adds a $2,450 mark-up for 46 inches and "smart" over a 27-inch HDTV.
Could Apple sell, and would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?
Those "16 speakers" things on the Bose box are going to be awful crap. You simply can't get good sound (and "surround" at that) with 16 1" speakers stuffed in one box.
OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product ..... would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?
Just one more thing: FWIW, this iMac 27-inch is currently my living room TV. Our local analogue TV broadcasts went off the air some time ago, and I am using this iMac with a USB plug-in TV tuner to receive digital TV.
I am waiting until the queues die down before I get a big HDTV. Does anyone think I should wait until Apple introduces a big HDTV?
Google TV is focused on "Search" as its key New Idea (when your favorite tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). but few consumers want to do Search on a big screen TV. they want mainly to passively consume. with as little effort as possible. e.g., does anyone use all that interactive web stuff on BluRay movies? very few.
on top of that, Google failed to reinvent the UI. still the old school LRUD cursor screen. that has to go. it always sucks.
and then Google made it all too complicated, a half baked miss mash as usual. so ... three strikes, and DOA.
giving Google TV an HDMI pass thru was one of its good ideas. maybe the only one ... oh yeah, widgets too.
Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.
I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.
My sincere sympathy for your underlying point here. Like my brother, my niece, and a good friend or two, your eyes are apparently not tracking or both seeing well enough in parallel for stereo vision. Sometimes this is correctable to great benefit -- e.g., Sue Barry's Fixing My Gaze -- sometimes not. You are right to bring this up. It was my oversight not to include it when I anticipated that there will be objections about 3D TV.
But 3D televisions can also be used in 2D with no loss in image quality. So the solution is to switch off the 3D when someone present is "stereo challenged." Or for the 2Ders to have their own screen nearby so as not to be excluded.
The consensus of the figures I've seen is that about 10 percent can't do stereo. I haven't seen figures on how many out that group could be helped by corrective lenses and vision training, but the advent of 3D movies and televisions should be welcomed for helping to diagnose vision problems and to provide practice goals for those who are improving.
And then again there are the benefits of non-stereo vision. Margaret Livingstone's work on Rembrandt and other artists suggests that the single-eye view of the world is more attuned to depth cues like lighting and perspective, a great aid in painting. I know a film photographer who swears by the usefulness of double vision. He doesn't have to close one eye, but he can both see through the viewfinder and see where he's going when doing handheld work.
This article and most of the comments that follow it are shallow and lack vision.
1. Features like screen sizes, resolution, speakers and 3D are not game changers, nor are they proprietary. There's no reason for Apple to jump into an already-crowded pond of products with generic physical features.
2. AAPL shareholders expect that any new products will enhance or defend the company's gross margins in the mid to long term. Margins for today's TV makers are nonexistent or pitiful by comparison. It will take a true game changer for consumers to decide that the value of a TV from Apple is worth the extra money.
3. E pluribus unum. Right now we have a chaotic spectrum of content ownership and delivery - cable and satellite on demand, Netflix, Hulu,etc. - as well as a plethora of add-on boxes - cable boxes, Apple TVs, WiFi connected Blu-Ray players, smart TVs, Xboxes and Wiis. The obvious gaping hole is a single device that can gather all this content under a single control scheme. But can Apple or any other entity bring off agreements with content controllers to bring order out of chaos? Doubtful. And even if Apple could, how long would it have a proprietary edge over other television set manufacturers?
Not saying it will never happen, but these are the hurdles to be crossed before Apple gets into the TV business.
Apple will produce three TVs. The sizes will be 45", 32", and 27". They will be announced in the first week of September 2011.
How do I know? I just gave it some thought and looked into my crystal ball.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I don't watch TV on a TV set. I watch everything from my 23" 1920 X 1080 resolution Dell monitor and my computer connected to the internet. My screen is plenty big for me and it only uses 33 watts of power. The computer uses 85 watts at its maximum output.
The consensus of the figures I've seen is that about 10 percent can't do stereo. I haven't seen figures on how many out that group could be helped by corrective lenses and vision training, but the advent of 3D movies and televisions should be welcomed for helping to diagnose vision problems and to provide practice goals for those who are improving.
Even for those of us who can perceive the depth and don't get blinding headaches from 3D images it's still a sub-par experience. My personal perception is that the 3D images look 'flatter' than 2D because the planes of parallax in so many frames tend to fall out so that you have only two or three. The result can feel like some sort of odd puppet show in which 2d characters move across a 3D stage.
Comments
I'll be in the market for a new HDTV next year... and would definitely consider getting one from Apple.
HOWEVER: It MUST support 3D (yes... I really do want it, for a number of reasons).... and it is hard for me to believe that Apple will do that.
If Apple comes out with a 3D fHDTV... I will buy it. Period.
Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.
I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.
So bring out a 40" iMac, retail it for $2,699, and $2,999. Voila an Apple-branded TV, even three of them if you consider the other iMac models as lesser versions of the new top-of-the-line models.
If convergence has happened, more or less, why not kill two birds with that proverbial one stone by simply making your all-in-one computer, in at least one version, large enough to serve as your main TV in the family room. I recently bought a new Mac Mini and decided to attach the old Mini to my main set. Really it's handy having it set up there in part because I didn't have a device attached that would have allowed me to access my Netflix account and now I do.
For a 40" set that includes a capable computer and good sound, one could make a case for something approaching $3,000, especially considering that one would be buying a TV and a computer that would cost something like that bought individually. But otherwise, this is some sort of joke. The days of $5,000 TVs are long gone. Even the sub-$1,000 sets now serve up terrific pictures when fed a decent signal through HDMI. The average consumer accustomed to bad signals is just not that picky.
So basically what I could see is Apple introducing a 40" iMac. Imagine the reflections you could get off that glossy screen.
Apple Thunderbolt 27" display will be reduced to $899. Apple TV is $99.
Total $998.
or new Thunderbolt 37" display for $1399. Mac Mini is $599.
Total $1998.
or new Thunderbolt 55" display for $2399. Mac Mini is $599.
Total $2998.
Sorry, no bluray, it's a bag of hurt ;-)
Seems logical for Apple pricing.
Sorry, no bluray, it's a bag of hurt ;-)
Why would there be Blu-ray in a (nonexistent) television, anyway?
That is exactly what GoogleTV does. Consumers were not impressed.
yeah, but google can't do anything right.
Given that Apple incrementally improve their products regularly and rapidly, I'd be very reluctant to buy something from them that I'd expect to last 7 or 8 years, especially a first generation product. Apple won't be able to pull their usual trick of withholding some obvious features for the next generation if they want people to buy their TVs.
I have a rapidly aging 1080i CRT still dominating the living room, so am due for an upgrade - but will probably stick to a Mac Mini/Generic TV combination for now. I'd rather have to upgrade my Mini or an Apple TV (@ $99) in two years than a $5,000 TV.
yeah, but google can't do anything right.
Oh, come now. They have search and advertisements absolutely correct.
Oh, come now. They have search and advertisements absolutely correct.
And that Calder Google Doodle last week was perfection.
yeah, but google can't do anything right.
And you were suggesting that Apple does exactly the same thing. Just copying Google is not the answer.
What Apple really needs to do is provide a better solution for input. It doesn't matter if AppleTV is a separate $99 box or built into an HDTV we need a better method of controlling smart TVs. Not a full qwerty keyboard as Google tried. Not an Apple remote with its minimal number of buttons. And not a $500 iPad. We need something new and something better suited for the task. It needs to be simple to use but still able to control complex apps. Hopefully Apple can find an answer.
And if it gets Apple's usual port-hatred, sign me out. On a laptop I can live with it, on a TV absolutely not.
Signed up on your site
Just wanted to give you some inside info about these tv's
They will offer a new IPTV service from Apple. This is what their new data and upcoming data farms are really for.
Apple will make it so easy to watch tv now and in the future.
Buy, unbox, plug into outlet, plug into ethernet and turn on. No more set top boxes!
When you turn on tv, Apple will offer you a new tv experience you will be able to subscribe too. All your favorite channels, on demand movies, live sports and great apps that you can select on a sidebar or overlay live picture.
It will be a game changer in the tv industry.
OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product with a big screen, and since the current $99 AppleTV box runs a version of iOS, a subset of Mac OS X, won't the (hypothetical) Apple TV be a big-screen iMac without a DVD drive? Maybe without a hard drive but with a small SSD? Less RAM and the lower OS?
The lowest-spec 27-inch iMac costs $1,200. Dropping the DVD and HD and OS might bring this down to $1,000. You can get a Samsung 27-inch HDTV for $350. So Apple's higher-resolution screen etc. adds a $650 mark-up.
Samsung sells a 40-inch HDTV for around $1,000, a 46-inch HDTV for around $1,200 and a 46-inch "Smart TV". for $2,800. So Samsung adds a $2,450 mark-up for 46 inches and "smart" over a 27-inch HDTV.
Could Apple sell, and would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?
And that Calder Google Doodle last week was perfection.
Their doodles are epic. They should abandon smartphones and focus on doodles
OK, let's ask this question from the other direction: given that this (hypothetical) Apple TV will be an Apple product ..... would anyone buy, a 46-inch Apple HDTV for $3,450?
Just one more thing: FWIW, this iMac 27-inch is currently my living room TV. Our local analogue TV broadcasts went off the air some time ago, and I am using this iMac with a USB plug-in TV tuner to receive digital TV.
I am waiting until the queues die down before I get a big HDTV. Does anyone think I should wait until Apple introduces a big HDTV?
If so, how long should I wait?
yeah, but google can't do anything right.
Google TV is focused on "Search" as its key New Idea (when your favorite tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). but few consumers want to do Search on a big screen TV. they want mainly to passively consume. with as little effort as possible. e.g., does anyone use all that interactive web stuff on BluRay movies? very few.
on top of that, Google failed to reinvent the UI. still the old school LRUD cursor screen. that has to go. it always sucks.
and then Google made it all too complicated, a half baked miss mash as usual. so ... three strikes, and DOA.
giving Google TV an HDMI pass thru was one of its good ideas. maybe the only one ... oh yeah, widgets too.
Just to point out - 3D TV (of any type) has significant limitations. A fairly large percentage of the population can't watch 3D TV due to vision problems. I don't get any 3D effect at 3D movies - and the 3D technology reduces the quality in other ways. Quite a few people get headaches or physically ill from watching 3D.
I suspect that's part of the reason 3D is slow to catch on. Every previous improvement (broadcast TV to VHS, VHS to DVD, DVD to BluRay, etc) was a significant improvement, but there was no downside to anyone. With 3D TV, there's a HUGE downside for a lot of people.
My sincere sympathy for your underlying point here. Like my brother, my niece, and a good friend or two, your eyes are apparently not tracking or both seeing well enough in parallel for stereo vision. Sometimes this is correctable to great benefit -- e.g., Sue Barry's Fixing My Gaze -- sometimes not. You are right to bring this up. It was my oversight not to include it when I anticipated that there will be objections about 3D TV.
But 3D televisions can also be used in 2D with no loss in image quality. So the solution is to switch off the 3D when someone present is "stereo challenged." Or for the 2Ders to have their own screen nearby so as not to be excluded.
The consensus of the figures I've seen is that about 10 percent can't do stereo. I haven't seen figures on how many out that group could be helped by corrective lenses and vision training, but the advent of 3D movies and televisions should be welcomed for helping to diagnose vision problems and to provide practice goals for those who are improving.
And then again there are the benefits of non-stereo vision. Margaret Livingstone's work on Rembrandt and other artists suggests that the single-eye view of the world is more attuned to depth cues like lighting and perspective, a great aid in painting. I know a film photographer who swears by the usefulness of double vision. He doesn't have to close one eye, but he can both see through the viewfinder and see where he's going when doing handheld work.
1. Features like screen sizes, resolution, speakers and 3D are not game changers, nor are they proprietary. There's no reason for Apple to jump into an already-crowded pond of products with generic physical features.
2. AAPL shareholders expect that any new products will enhance or defend the company's gross margins in the mid to long term. Margins for today's TV makers are nonexistent or pitiful by comparison. It will take a true game changer for consumers to decide that the value of a TV from Apple is worth the extra money.
3. E pluribus unum. Right now we have a chaotic spectrum of content ownership and delivery - cable and satellite on demand, Netflix, Hulu,etc. - as well as a plethora of add-on boxes - cable boxes, Apple TVs, WiFi connected Blu-Ray players, smart TVs, Xboxes and Wiis. The obvious gaping hole is a single device that can gather all this content under a single control scheme. But can Apple or any other entity bring off agreements with content controllers to bring order out of chaos? Doubtful. And even if Apple could, how long would it have a proprietary edge over other television set manufacturers?
Not saying it will never happen, but these are the hurdles to be crossed before Apple gets into the TV business.
How do I know? I just gave it some thought and looked into my crystal ball.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I don't watch TV on a TV set. I watch everything from my 23" 1920 X 1080 resolution Dell monitor and my computer connected to the internet. My screen is plenty big for me and it only uses 33 watts of power. The computer uses 85 watts at its maximum output.
The consensus of the figures I've seen is that about 10 percent can't do stereo. I haven't seen figures on how many out that group could be helped by corrective lenses and vision training, but the advent of 3D movies and televisions should be welcomed for helping to diagnose vision problems and to provide practice goals for those who are improving.
Even for those of us who can perceive the depth and don't get blinding headaches from 3D images it's still a sub-par experience. My personal perception is that the 3D images look 'flatter' than 2D because the planes of parallax in so many frames tend to fall out so that you have only two or three. The result can feel like some sort of odd puppet show in which 2d characters move across a 3D stage.