They even haven't built an FM radio into the iPhone yet. So why would they try to do that tuner thing in a full blown TV set ?!
It would have to be a TV which is totally different than current ones, stripping off all the hassle with tuners and various input sources. Just the LCD panel, wifi and AirPlay receptive A5 or A6 equipped logic board. No hardware scaler, no 3D processing, no HDMI ports.
If they could produce at 300$, they had to sell no lower than 600$ to get their standard margins. And Apple should never drop their margin targets!
But, who would buy a TV set without inputs and tuners ? I guess, even the hardcore Internet enthusiasts among us would not consider that. TV is all about 'having all possible options'. sports events, night shows, p*** channels, kids program ... I don't think that Internet can compete with the current 'old school' TV model. Just iTunes, YouTube, Vimeo and the like without anything from the 'old world' ? No one would buy it.
It would be sufficient if they license out AirPlay, create a reference standard and leave it to a 'coalition of the willing' original TV set makers to bringt that to market. A fully equipped TV with an included AppleTv logic board would do it. Apple could describe all of the user work flow integration in their reference standard, e.g. require that the TV switches on for AirPlay and the like. All Siri remote control can already be done by iPhones, iTouches etc.
Also I think that an iTV would cannibalize some iPad sales, as the iPad is also a good home video consumer device. And how would an iTV integrate into the ecosystem ? There's nothing more passive than a TV screen, neither touch it, nor want to see apps running on it, not even 'widgets' ! That has all failed. Would Apple sell more content ? Probably not. And whats todays revenue contribution of iTunes ? iTunes is there to support hardware sales, not other way round.
'Reinventing' the TV only makes sense when you can reinvent its content. But who wants that and how profitable is it ? TV content used to be 'free', paid by ads. So this is Googles territory.
Home automation would be a much better Apple target: it's essentially hardware, it's a mass market, requires cloud and networking, integrates well into iDevices, requires extreme user friendliness ... and as it controls your home power, could refuse to recharge/supply Android devices... And it's for people with money. I don't see that Apple should try to serve to all the freebies.
CES tends to be filled with whatever vendors think Apple will introduce next. Optical drive-less MBPs means, a rumoured, 50 Ultrabooks at CES this year. Does this mean CES will be filled with a plethora of new intelligent TVs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Great, so when I am in the middle of a program and the kid comes through the living room whining "I wanna watch cartoon network" the TV will change channels?
Or - with the TV something like 15 feet away from me - "Find Mythbusters" - "Find MYTHBUSTERS" - "FIND MYTHBUSTERS" - "FIND MYTH BUSTERS" - oh forget it.
There is a well traveled clip from 30 Rock showing pretty much that same thing, except dialogue on the TV is causing the voice control to react. Pretty funny.
I'd think that Apple would 1) use Siri in a remote so you're not yelling across a room, and 2) require the press of a button to activate just like with Siri on the 4S. Bluetooth with version 4.0 finally seems ready to start replacing IR remote controls.
This has been the obvious direction for many years now.
Wait for the "Microsoft and/or Google did this years ago" comments.
Sure, HDTV manufacturers have been building in third party links like Netflix and Hulu for a couple of years now but they've been me-too kludges. Set top boxes like iTV, GoogleTV, Roku, etc., have had limited success in the mass market. It will take the total package of HDTV/iOS/iTunes and agreements with the content providers to do it right. Apple has the total package under its control. The others don't so once again they will have to catch up by piecing together third party parts.
I'm sure that the indidual channel suppliers will be happy to offer a la cart subscriptions to such a setup. Let's see, I'll click on the Discovery channel, the History channel, the Science channel, and oh yes, OWN so I can watch Dr. Phil. When that takes off the cable and satellite companies will be scrambling too. It looks like Apple will be disrupting two more business models if this comes to pass.
Misek wrote. "Having said that, it appears that mainstream TV manufacturers are likely to be at least 6 to 12 months behind in a best-case scenario."
I think this has got to be one of the most absurb things I've heard any analyst claim (and we've heard some pretty absurd things from these guys). Nobody has a clue what this phantom Apple TV might be, even Misek says he has no idea what features it would include, and he's claiming that the competition is already 6-12 months behind? Behind what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In an interview published last week, Isaacson revealed that before he died, Jobs had three products he wanted to reinvent, with the television being first among them, followed by textbooks and photography. Jobs reportedly felt there was "no reason" for televisions to be as difficult to use as they currently are.
Would anyone claim that Apple has accomplished any of these three items? They've made relatively minor incremental improvements in organizing your photos with facial recogniztion and location tagging in iPhone and Aperture, but not much in the way of improving the taking of the photos (yes, the iPhone has a great camera, but not so much better than other smartphones, and Applel should be embarrased by the cameras they've put in the Touch and iPad). The iPad is a great tablet computer, but Apple has left it to others to figure out how to use it for textbooks. And of course, AppleTV has been largely a "hobby" for Apple since it was released.
It's ironic that Apple's greatest recent success has been the iPhone and yet reinventing the phone wasn't on Steve's wish list.
The TV doesn't need reinventing. Accessing content is what needs reinventing. The ONLY time time I interact with my TV is for three things: turning in on/off, adjusting volume, switching inputs (which I rarely need to do). Everything else is interacting with the cable box or my Mac mini HTPC. No matter how smart Apple makes a TV, it's still just a dumb monitor to me. (But I'll be happy to be surprised if Apple does come up with something revolutionary.)
if they can reinvent sports event coverage then they are good to go. Sports is the only thing people will really pay for. And it needs to be available! If ANY sports event of just some relevance in the whole wide world can be watched on an iTV - regardless of price - then it would sell.
Probably Apple creates a 'sports reporter' app for iPhoners and they rely on people filming and streaming all possible events. So you'd have different perspectives to switch on. Just an idea...
No they don't, and as said in my previous post Apple has nothing to do in the cable/sat area. They need a connected TV with internet content.
Internet content from where? The content providers won't play ball. The current AppleTV has MLB, WSJ and YouTube.
To watch the internet channels you still need an internet connection, which most people get from their cable provider.
I watch a lot of TV via the internet and it's good fun but the picture quality is not that great.
I hope they can come up with a solution coz I would love an Apple Television. Personally I would be happy with a normal telly that receives all the free to air channels and has the functions of the current AppleTV built in so I could access my iTunes content directly from the cloud rather than having to go through my iOS device.
I doubt Apple could really "re-invent" the TV. They could certainly make a better TV, but it's hard to imagine anything they could do that would disrupt the market like they did with phones.
Where they could make an impact is on the content side and how that interacts with the hardware. There is nothing that exists at the moment that lets you watch what you want to, when you want to, through one simple easy-to-use interface.
I agree with you. The nearest thing I have tried to this is Netflix on Mac, iPad, iPhone and ATV. Obviously we have to accept the older material with no current or breaking news type content. However, it is a model once used, makes everything else seem archaic. If we had an Apple designed Netfilx (I must say it is pretty good already) including access to current content and news it would be amazing. I particularly love being able to start watching on the big screen and continue exactly where I left off on my iPad or iPhone or the other way around. Plus being able to watch something different on any device through the same account even when traveling.
I don't see Apple releasing a TV. They care about the user experience and delivering content which can be done with an improved Apple TV with Siri and a few other features.
Why bother directly competing with other LCD/Plasma manufacturers and limit people's options? You just connect your TV to an HDMI Apple TV, then you never touch the TV remote again. Everything is done using the Apple device. It would be nearly as easy as a fully custom Apple made TV.
Google will accuse Apple of copying them. Remember, the Google TV came out FIRST, so anything Apple does is obviously a copy of that.
Yeah, but that FIRST Google TV was just Google throwing everything at the wall and hoping something would stick... YouTube? Android Apps? Seriously. Kitchen. Sink. Approach. It's not a singular vision of anything.
The Google fans will cry, "but Apple needs competition!" forgetting completely how it was the stale and unimaginative TV manufacturers who needed competition (from Apple) to finally do something innovative with TVs.
Has anyone noticed? Vizio that shares manufacturing with Sharp have no new TVs for the holidays.
Apple hasn't bought them.
Quote:
I almost bought an 80 inch Sharp this morning but have decided to wait on Apple.
Question: What does anyone need with an 80" TV, and where could anyone put it? Also, why would you wait for a $99 Apple TV box to buy an HDTV? Or even if you believe Apple's making a TV, the rumors have only ever said 50", so you don't seem to be in their fictional market, anyway.
I think an AppleTv would have to make it easy to cancel cable. For that to happen today, it would have to have a tuner for live over the air hd broadcasts, along with a built in DVR. iTunes would have to have all the popular shows readily available (that's where it could get tricky... shows like Dexter aren't available the next day, I think). I would think there would be an overlay similar to what Elgato's software does. I always wondered why Apple never bought them. I would think you would never have to switch sources, because itunes would be a channel, your mac would be a channel, netflix would be a channel, and maybe even ota channels would just be called NBC, ABC, CBS, etc...
Of course I have no real idea... it's just something I know I would like to have.
Comments
It would have to be a TV which is totally different than current ones, stripping off all the hassle with tuners and various input sources. Just the LCD panel, wifi and AirPlay receptive A5 or A6 equipped logic board. No hardware scaler, no 3D processing, no HDMI ports.
If they could produce at 300$, they had to sell no lower than 600$ to get their standard margins. And Apple should never drop their margin targets!
But, who would buy a TV set without inputs and tuners ? I guess, even the hardcore Internet enthusiasts among us would not consider that. TV is all about 'having all possible options'. sports events, night shows, p*** channels, kids program ... I don't think that Internet can compete with the current 'old school' TV model. Just iTunes, YouTube, Vimeo and the like without anything from the 'old world' ? No one would buy it.
It would be sufficient if they license out AirPlay, create a reference standard and leave it to a 'coalition of the willing' original TV set makers to bringt that to market. A fully equipped TV with an included AppleTv logic board would do it. Apple could describe all of the user work flow integration in their reference standard, e.g. require that the TV switches on for AirPlay and the like. All Siri remote control can already be done by iPhones, iTouches etc.
Also I think that an iTV would cannibalize some iPad sales, as the iPad is also a good home video consumer device. And how would an iTV integrate into the ecosystem ? There's nothing more passive than a TV screen, neither touch it, nor want to see apps running on it, not even 'widgets' ! That has all failed. Would Apple sell more content ? Probably not. And whats todays revenue contribution of iTunes ? iTunes is there to support hardware sales, not other way round.
'Reinventing' the TV only makes sense when you can reinvent its content. But who wants that and how profitable is it ? TV content used to be 'free', paid by ads. So this is Googles territory.
Home automation would be a much better Apple target: it's essentially hardware, it's a mass market, requires cloud and networking, integrates well into iDevices, requires extreme user friendliness ... and as it controls your home power, could refuse to recharge/supply Android devices...
And, at most FIVE buttons!
One button. Just like the iPhone. Just like the iPad. One button.
We'll know more when they leave one in a bar.
lol....almost made me choke on my coffee!
Great, so when I am in the middle of a program and the kid comes through the living room whining "I wanna watch cartoon network" the TV will change channels?
Or - with the TV something like 15 feet away from me - "Find Mythbusters" - "Find MYTHBUSTERS" - "FIND MYTHBUSTERS" - "FIND MYTH BUSTERS" - oh forget it.
There is a well traveled clip from 30 Rock showing pretty much that same thing, except dialogue on the TV is causing the voice control to react. Pretty funny.
I'd think that Apple would 1) use Siri in a remote so you're not yelling across a room, and 2) require the press of a button to activate just like with Siri on the 4S. Bluetooth with version 4.0 finally seems ready to start replacing IR remote controls.
This has been the obvious direction for many years now.
Wait for the "Microsoft and/or Google did this years ago" comments.
Sure, HDTV manufacturers have been building in third party links like Netflix and Hulu for a couple of years now but they've been me-too kludges. Set top boxes like iTV, GoogleTV, Roku, etc., have had limited success in the mass market. It will take the total package of HDTV/iOS/iTunes and agreements with the content providers to do it right. Apple has the total package under its control. The others don't so once again they will have to catch up by piecing together third party parts.
I'm sure that the indidual channel suppliers will be happy to offer a la cart subscriptions to such a setup. Let's see, I'll click on the Discovery channel, the History channel, the Science channel, and oh yes, OWN so I can watch Dr. Phil. When that takes off the cable and satellite companies will be scrambling too. It looks like Apple will be disrupting two more business models if this comes to pass.
Apple might first want to fix all loose strings. Battery, iCloud, iWork, ...
Baloney from a hater.
Misek wrote. "Having said that, it appears that mainstream TV manufacturers are likely to be at least 6 to 12 months behind in a best-case scenario."
I think this has got to be one of the most absurb things I've heard any analyst claim (and we've heard some pretty absurd things from these guys). Nobody has a clue what this phantom Apple TV might be, even Misek says he has no idea what features it would include, and he's claiming that the competition is already 6-12 months behind? Behind what?
In an interview published last week, Isaacson revealed that before he died, Jobs had three products he wanted to reinvent, with the television being first among them, followed by textbooks and photography. Jobs reportedly felt there was "no reason" for televisions to be as difficult to use as they currently are.
Would anyone claim that Apple has accomplished any of these three items? They've made relatively minor incremental improvements in organizing your photos with facial recogniztion and location tagging in iPhone and Aperture, but not much in the way of improving the taking of the photos (yes, the iPhone has a great camera, but not so much better than other smartphones, and Applel should be embarrased by the cameras they've put in the Touch and iPad). The iPad is a great tablet computer, but Apple has left it to others to figure out how to use it for textbooks. And of course, AppleTV has been largely a "hobby" for Apple since it was released.
It's ironic that Apple's greatest recent success has been the iPhone and yet reinventing the phone wasn't on Steve's wish list.
The TV doesn't need reinventing. Accessing content is what needs reinventing. The ONLY time time I interact with my TV is for three things: turning in on/off, adjusting volume, switching inputs (which I rarely need to do). Everything else is interacting with the cable box or my Mac mini HTPC. No matter how smart Apple makes a TV, it's still just a dumb monitor to me. (But I'll be happy to be surprised if Apple does come up with something revolutionary.)
I almost bought an 80 inch Sharp this morning but have decided to wait on Apple.
Probably Apple creates a 'sports reporter' app for iPhoners and they rely on people filming and streaming all possible events. So you'd have different perspectives to switch on. Just an idea...
But it won't work without sports TV
No they don't, and as said in my previous post Apple has nothing to do in the cable/sat area. They need a connected TV with internet content.
Internet content from where? The content providers won't play ball. The current AppleTV has MLB, WSJ and YouTube.
To watch the internet channels you still need an internet connection, which most people get from their cable provider.
I watch a lot of TV via the internet and it's good fun but the picture quality is not that great.
I hope they can come up with a solution coz I would love an Apple Television. Personally I would be happy with a normal telly that receives all the free to air channels and has the functions of the current AppleTV built in so I could access my iTunes content directly from the cloud rather than having to go through my iOS device.
I doubt Apple could really "re-invent" the TV. They could certainly make a better TV, but it's hard to imagine anything they could do that would disrupt the market like they did with phones.
Where they could make an impact is on the content side and how that interacts with the hardware. There is nothing that exists at the moment that lets you watch what you want to, when you want to, through one simple easy-to-use interface.
I agree with you. The nearest thing I have tried to this is Netflix on Mac, iPad, iPhone and ATV. Obviously we have to accept the older material with no current or breaking news type content. However, it is a model once used, makes everything else seem archaic. If we had an Apple designed Netfilx (I must say it is pretty good already) including access to current content and news it would be amazing. I particularly love being able to start watching on the big screen and continue exactly where I left off on my iPad or iPhone or the other way around. Plus being able to watch something different on any device through the same account even when traveling.
Why bother directly competing with other LCD/Plasma manufacturers and limit people's options? You just connect your TV to an HDMI Apple TV, then you never touch the TV remote again. Everything is done using the Apple device. It would be nearly as easy as a fully custom Apple made TV.
Google will accuse Apple of copying them. Remember, the Google TV came out FIRST, so anything Apple does is obviously a copy of that.
Yeah, but that FIRST Google TV was just Google throwing everything at the wall and hoping something would stick... YouTube? Android Apps? Seriously. Kitchen. Sink. Approach. It's not a singular vision of anything.
The Google fans will cry, "but Apple needs competition!" forgetting completely how it was the stale and unimaginative TV manufacturers who needed competition (from Apple) to finally do something innovative with TVs.
Has anyone noticed? Vizio that shares manufacturing with Sharp have no new TVs for the holidays.
Apple hasn't bought them.
I almost bought an 80 inch Sharp this morning but have decided to wait on Apple.
Question: What does anyone need with an 80" TV, and where could anyone put it? Also, why would you wait for a $99 Apple TV box to buy an HDTV? Or even if you believe Apple's making a TV, the rumors have only ever said 50", so you don't seem to be in their fictional market, anyway.
Has anyone tried the Whole-Home DVR service with DirectTV? How responsive is the system?
I think that we might have that. Not sure myself; I stay away from satellite software.
Whatever we have is terrible, though. I do know that. It's completely unintuitive.
I think that we might have that. Not sure myself; I stay away from satellite software.
Whatever we have is terrible, though. I do know that. It's completely unintuitive.
The ads are unrealistic yet compelling.
The ads are unrealistic yet compelling.
Yep, if we DO have that, I have no idea how to use it.
And Apple has had that capability since the first Apple TV, so it should be easy for them to implement correctly.
Of course I have no real idea... it's just something I know I would like to have.