Also, having the option of 3D for (some) movies is increasingly appealing -- viewed a high-end new-plasma, 3D Panasonic the other day at a friend's, and I was quite simply blown away.
I've only seen one movie that seemed to be a better experience in 3D. A documentary about caves, if you can believe it. I'm sure 3D sets will be standard eventually but does the viewer get out of them today?
You don't seem to understand the lack of standards currently present amongst cable companies. If the hardware was completely generic, it would be much easier for television manufacturers to integrate it. As for wireless, there will be wires somewhere. We don't have the infrastructure currently to deliver all of that wirelessly. Even if you didn't have the wires directly connected to the television, something would be feeding it.
All of the things you find annoying with televisions could go away with basic enforced standards. Apple's main appeal here would be brand loyalty, and possible integration with other Apple devices, like if you could preview a channel on your iphone/ipad and use it as a remote. The other stuff would have been solved by other manufacturers a long time ago if not for the issues I mentioned.
I don't think you understood my post at all, so I must not have been sufficiently clear. I'll try harder.
Apple's ultimate goal should be to destroy the existing system completely. Once that happens, "watching TV" should mean that there is no bluray player or cable box. All paid content would come to a TV in the same way that it comes to an iPad -- through the iTunes/App store, and that happens over 802.lln connected to the Internet (that's the enforced standard). (unpaid content can stream over the local wi-fi from your Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc)
The problem is in getting from here to there. And for that, there needs to be a connection to the existing world. I'm proposing that connection would be a wireless link from the Apple TV to an Apple-branded piece of hardware that would connect to the existing rat's nest of receiver, etc. Because that wireless link is between two apple devices, there is no need for standards enforcement -- it can be whatever wireless technology apple chooses. That Apple-branded piece of hardware (as I said -- you can think of it as being analogous to an airport express) would provide the physical connectivity (hdmi, optical audio) that is needed to relate to the existing hardware mess we all have to live with. This would allow us to shed those legacy devices gradually rather than all at once. This is essential, because not all content will be available through the iTunes/AppStore model from day 1, and people won't want to give up that content. So, practical example -- you connect your cable box to the AirportExpress and the AirportExpress wireless streams the video to the AppleTV. You still have to control the cable box using the remote.
But by keeping the rat's nest at a wireless arm's distance from the AppleTV, the AppleTV itself is uncorrupted. When you are finally able to shed that last piece of legacy equipment, the AppleTV you're left with will be the AppleTV you always wanted -- no extra cables, super simple -- just an invisible antenna that used to communicate with the AirportExpress-like device that provided the physical link to the rat's nest.
I think something like this is essential... the AppleTV has to be both capable of eventually totally replacing the current system while at the same time coexisting with the current system.
I've only seen one movie that seemed to be a better experience in 3D. A documentary about caves, if you can believe it. I'm sure 3D sets will be standard eventually but does the viewer get out of them today?
I think that a lot of 3D is overkill. That's why I had said "...(some) movies...."
The comparison here was between viewing 3D in a regular theater and the Panasonic TV (which was, btw, a 55"; Panasonic TC-P55VT30). I found it to be nearly as appealing, and without having to put up with the popcorn stink and stickiness. (The glasses were fairly high-tech too. They cost about $100 each, and required to be charged -- perhaps there is a quality issue at that end as well).
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind everyone's magical leap of logic that allows for 'cracked the TV' to become 'Apple is making a TV' when Apple has made a box that serves their TV purposes for nearly five years.
That one is easy. Steve Jobs didn't say, "We cracked the TV ... again." He also didn't say, "We've been doing TV all wrong." Clearly, his comment meant that Apple had solved a vexing problem. If the TV were satisfying Apple's TV needs, then there would not have been a problem to solve in the first place.
That said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set. In fact, I can make and have made the argument that an iOS-based universal remote control or iPad/iPhone/iPod touch could solve most of the problems that many users have with HDTV sets.
To a larger point, this latest "rumor" has to be one of the lamest rumors that AppleInsider.com has ever posted. The general tenor and tone of the comments about a possible Apple HDTV set make me wonder if those commenting have ever visited the TV section of Best Buy, Sears, H. H. Gregg or any other consumer electronics store. They clearly know nothing about the state of the products that Apple would be competing against. Whoever originated this latest AppleInsider.com rumor knows even less.
AppleInsider.com reports that Apple is in negotiations with a Japanese flat panel manufacturer for displays for its new TV. Well, others have already reported that the panel manufacturer is Sharp. Everybody who sells flat panel TVs buys panels from a very small group of suppliers. If the supplier is Japanese, then it is probably Sharp.
AppleInsider.com made my jaw drop with this statement:
Quote:
Apple's anticipated high-end 55-inch model is expected to compete with "smart TVs" from established television makers like Samsung and LG.
Really, now? If Apple returns to the TV set business, does anybody expect Apple to go after the ordinary [dumb] TVs. Exactly which problem can Apple solve for dumb-TV viewers with a dumb TV of its own? Since 2007, new Apple products have been so awesome that buyers are willing to queue-up for days to get them. Who would queue-up for an ordinary TV even if it has the Apple logo? If it is an Apple HDTV, then you want an set that is based on iOS goodness.
The lamest part of this rumor has to do with the sizes of the three screens--32", 55", and some unknown size in between. As someone else has already said, this is so 2009. This is the kind of move you make when you are just sticking your toe in the water. If Apple were serious with these entries, then it will be in for a major surprise. Sharp, Apple's rumored supplier, is touting its 60", 70", and 80" panels. If Apple re-enters the TV market, then I don't know what it expects to achieve.
Certainly it does not need to sell sets in every possible size. However, I would think it would want to make a splash. Nothing in any part of this rumor sounds like a splash to me. My response to it is "Meh."
Apple better not be thinking that they can sell a 55" 1080p LED TV that normally goes for 2k (give or take) for $3000. They need to make it the same price or lower.
you don't "get it". The extra $1,000 would be worth it, because you could use it to buy iOS apps and content.
I hope that whatever TV functionality they muster in terms of OS that it can (and will) be embedded in future iMacs. My 27" is already the focal point of my NYC studio, and I'm a huge fan of the all-in-one beauty of the concept.
My guess is that you'll get what you are looking for. If not, a Mini ould likely mate up well with the new ATV.
TThat said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set.
I wanted to point out this sentence and reiterate. The "cracking" isn't doing what people hoped Apple would. Combining Apple's HW/OS into a TV takes no leap of thought. It's the easy part. The hard part is everything else beyond the TV that makes cable boxes non standardized, that keeps the content owners and distributors in a very secure symbiotic relationship.
Or course there is Siri making the way you interact with the TV but I also don't think that is the crack when there are still the other issues to deal with. Siri is just an extra tool to improve usability but that doesn't resolve the content and logistics issues.
I am more or less in the market for a new TV for the living room. I am curious to see what surprises Apple has cooked up--everybody who is proclaiming "meh!" already needs to look back at history.
Remember the surprise (and initial dismay) when the iPhone was first announced? "No keyboard? No fit and paste? Expensive as hell! Web apps??" It took us a while to get it and it took Apple a while to polish it, but now, nobody denies that Apple turned the phone world upside down.
Then came the iPad. Shock and dismay at the name, lack of ports, inability to run "real" software and such. It was hard to see what it would be good at--sure, it is a nice toy, but...
So, to everybody who says this is just going to be an expensive LCD with an AppleTV built in--I totally expect you to be wrong. I don't know what the plan is, but I expect it to be well thought out and to be part of a multi-year roll-out...
** Well said hopefully will stop these do goodders once and for all, get a life and look o the future....THINK DIFFERENTLY...some said.
I just read about the Xbox update coming out on Dec 6 and I don't see how an Apple TV could beat this.
With that update what you're getting is what has been rumoured and expected that Apple will be getting. Apple has nothing if they don't have contracts with the networks for content.
The benefit that Apple and MS is more inline with the sat companies. There is really no place those companies can set up shop in the US, while regional cable companies have a maximum limit on their potential customer base do to the number of homes and businesses they have. This limits how much they pay per capita for all those blocks of channels they buy. This means they might be able to get reasonable deals per capita even if they being charged a lot more than their competitors due to the fear factor that content owners felt when bringing TV shows and movies to iTunes Store. We may actually be able to get a decent cost out of this… before the cable companies jack your internet rates, throtle and cap your usage.
Me: "Siri, I want to watch How I Met Your Mother, can you help me out?"
Siri TV: "That idea is Legen- wait for it -dary, LEGENDARY Jensonb! It's not on right now, but I found some episodes on Hulu, would you like to watch one of these?"
The big challenge is how to make a TV that doesn't suck as bad as all other TVs while still fitting into the infrastructure that exists for all other TVs. One of the hardest things here I think is connections&cables.
iCloud and other stuff will handle that.
iCloud will replace the DVR. The Cable Box can usually be eliminated via a card.
The BluRay player can be retired and replaced with Apple services. So can the game consoles - they will be moved to the den with the old TV. The kids like iGames better anyways.
No ethernet of course, but instead the ability to sync up with other Apple stuff via wireless.
The sound system will be integrated and will use wireless to drive the speakers. You will be able to start with the built-in speakers if you wish, and will be able to add additional speakers (from licen$ed third parties) later.
Just plug 'er in and let 'er rip!
Quote:
Under that scenario, the AppleTV could be an uncompromised device that still is able to fit into a compromised world.
No. The Apple TV will eliminate and replace that cluttered world. It will offer a better alternative for each POS that clutters things up now. The cluttered world will either exist in its own man cave, the kid's room, or in boxes in the back of the attic.
It will be replaced in the living room with the Apple TV, totally wireless and integrated, and maybe some other optional wireless accessories from the usual suspects, which span from Belkin to iHome to B&W.
I just read about the Xbox update coming out on Dec 6 and I don't see how an Apple TV could beat this.
One's a game console that is louder than a Mac Pro, is a huge power whore, and has a 60% failure rate; the other is a $99 box that uses 6 watts maximum, makes no sound, and, as far as I know, can't fail.
"They're both moving to the big city? can they get along?! Svelte and Bloated: The Story of Two TV Interfaces! Tuesdays on NBC."
And maybe people don't want to use the Xbox interface, Microsoft services, or anything else related to it.
wondering if Tim Cook can create the reality distortion field and convince us once again that Apple has just created another 4-year-old technology. multi-touch, siri, et al.
I think something like this is essential... the AppleTV has to be both capable of eventually totally replacing the current system while at the same time coexisting with the current system.
Most people will be happy just to get rid of all that crap. The Apple TV will work out of the box to do it.
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind everyone's magical leap of logic that allows for 'cracked the TV' to become 'Apple is making a TV' when Apple has made a box that serves their TV purposes for nearly five years.
Yeah... although I haven't played with that thing much. I know maybe three people that own them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I don't think you understood my post at all, so I must not have been sufficiently clear. I'll try harder.
Apple's ultimate goal should be to destroy the existing system completely. Once that happens, "watching TV" should mean that there is no bluray player or cable box. All paid content would come to a TV in the same way that it comes to an iPad -- through the iTunes/App store, and that happens over 802.lln connected to the Internet (that's the enforced standard). (unpaid content can stream over the local wi-fi from your Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc)
That makes more sense now . Of course they'd have to work out some kind of licensing terms. I think they had a lot of tension with the networks over licensing terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
wondering if Tim Cook can create the reality distortion field and convince us once again that Apple has just created another 4-year-old technology. multi-touch, siri, et al.
That one is easy. Steve Jobs didn't say, "We cracked the TV ... again." He also didn't say, "We've been doing TV all wrong." Clearly, his comment meant that Apple had solved a vexing problem. If the TV were satisfying Apple's TV needs, then there would not have been a problem to solve in the first place.
That said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set. In fact, I can make and have made the argument that an iOS-based universal remote control or iPad/iPhone/iPod touch could solve most of the problems that many users have with HDTV sets.
To a larger point, this latest "rumor" has to be one of the lamest rumors that AppleInsider.com has ever posted. The general tenor and tone of the comments about a possible Apple HDTV set make me wonder if those commenting have ever visited the TV section of Best Buy, Sears, H. H. Gregg or any other consumer electronics store. They clearly know nothing about the state of the products that Apple would be competing against. Whoever originated this latest AppleInsider.com rumor knows even less.
AppleInsider.com reports that Apple is in negotiations with a Japanese flat panel manufacturer for displays for its new TV. Well, others have already reported that the panel manufacturer is Sharp. Everybody who sells flat panel TVs buys panels from a very small group of suppliers. If the supplier is Japanese, then it is probably Sharp.
AppleInsider.com made my jaw drop with this statement:
Really, now? If Apple returns to the TV set business, does anybody expect Apple to go after the ordinary [dumb] TVs. Exactly which problem can Apple solve for dumb-TV viewers with a dumb TV of its own? Since 2007, new Apple products have been so awesome that buyers are willing to queue-up for days to get them. Who would queue-up for an ordinary TV even if it has the Apple logo? If it is an Apple HDTV, then you want an set that is based on iOS goodness.
The lamest part of this rumor has to do with the sizes of the three screens--32", 55", and some unknown size in between. As someone else has already said, this is so 2009. This is the kind of move you make when you are just sticking your toe in the water. If Apple were serious with these entries, then it will be in for a major surprise. Sharp, Apple's rumored supplier, is touting its 60", 70", and 80" panels. If Apple re-enters the TV market, then I don't know what it expects to achieve.
Certainly it does not need to sell sets in every possible size. However, I would think it would want to make a splash. Nothing in any part of this rumor sounds like a splash to me. My response to it is "Meh."
Can one put a "global moderator" on one's ignore list?
Okay, I'll pick on you. You're the third person I've seen mention this nonsense, and it's getting to be bothersome.
What does my being a moderator have to do with anything?
Do you think that you should be allowed to present your guesses as facts? Do you think that that's an appropriate way to present your opinions (because until Apple says so, that's all they are)?
If so, become a tech analyst. Otherwise people are going to criticize you for it, and you'll have to live with that.
Actually, people will criticize you MORE if you become an analyst because they'll assume you're always wrong. Which is really just being stereotypical and unfair to analysts, but they certainly DO seem to fit that stereotype as though it's their job to do so?
Comments
Also, having the option of 3D for (some) movies is increasingly appealing -- viewed a high-end new-plasma, 3D Panasonic the other day at a friend's, and I was quite simply blown away.
I've only seen one movie that seemed to be a better experience in 3D. A documentary about caves, if you can believe it. I'm sure 3D sets will be standard eventually but does the viewer get out of them today?
You don't seem to understand the lack of standards currently present amongst cable companies. If the hardware was completely generic, it would be much easier for television manufacturers to integrate it. As for wireless, there will be wires somewhere. We don't have the infrastructure currently to deliver all of that wirelessly. Even if you didn't have the wires directly connected to the television, something would be feeding it.
All of the things you find annoying with televisions could go away with basic enforced standards. Apple's main appeal here would be brand loyalty, and possible integration with other Apple devices, like if you could preview a channel on your iphone/ipad and use it as a remote. The other stuff would have been solved by other manufacturers a long time ago if not for the issues I mentioned.
I don't think you understood my post at all, so I must not have been sufficiently clear. I'll try harder.
Apple's ultimate goal should be to destroy the existing system completely. Once that happens, "watching TV" should mean that there is no bluray player or cable box. All paid content would come to a TV in the same way that it comes to an iPad -- through the iTunes/App store, and that happens over 802.lln connected to the Internet (that's the enforced standard). (unpaid content can stream over the local wi-fi from your Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc)
The problem is in getting from here to there. And for that, there needs to be a connection to the existing world. I'm proposing that connection would be a wireless link from the Apple TV to an Apple-branded piece of hardware that would connect to the existing rat's nest of receiver, etc. Because that wireless link is between two apple devices, there is no need for standards enforcement -- it can be whatever wireless technology apple chooses. That Apple-branded piece of hardware (as I said -- you can think of it as being analogous to an airport express) would provide the physical connectivity (hdmi, optical audio) that is needed to relate to the existing hardware mess we all have to live with. This would allow us to shed those legacy devices gradually rather than all at once. This is essential, because not all content will be available through the iTunes/AppStore model from day 1, and people won't want to give up that content. So, practical example -- you connect your cable box to the AirportExpress and the AirportExpress wireless streams the video to the AppleTV. You still have to control the cable box using the remote.
But by keeping the rat's nest at a wireless arm's distance from the AppleTV, the AppleTV itself is uncorrupted. When you are finally able to shed that last piece of legacy equipment, the AppleTV you're left with will be the AppleTV you always wanted -- no extra cables, super simple -- just an invisible antenna that used to communicate with the AirportExpress-like device that provided the physical link to the rat's nest.
I think something like this is essential... the AppleTV has to be both capable of eventually totally replacing the current system while at the same time coexisting with the current system.
I've only seen one movie that seemed to be a better experience in 3D. A documentary about caves, if you can believe it. I'm sure 3D sets will be standard eventually but does the viewer get out of them today?
I think that a lot of 3D is overkill. That's why I had said "...(some) movies...."
The comparison here was between viewing 3D in a regular theater and the Panasonic TV (which was, btw, a 55"; Panasonic TC-P55VT30). I found it to be nearly as appealing, and without having to put up with the popcorn stink and stickiness. (The glasses were fairly high-tech too. They cost about $100 each, and required to be charged -- perhaps there is a quality issue at that end as well).
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind everyone's magical leap of logic that allows for 'cracked the TV' to become 'Apple is making a TV' when Apple has made a box that serves their TV purposes for nearly five years.
That one is easy. Steve Jobs didn't say, "We cracked the TV ... again." He also didn't say, "We've been doing TV all wrong." Clearly, his comment meant that Apple had solved a vexing problem. If the TV were satisfying Apple's TV needs, then there would not have been a problem to solve in the first place.
That said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set. In fact, I can make and have made the argument that an iOS-based universal remote control or iPad/iPhone/iPod touch could solve most of the problems that many users have with HDTV sets.
To a larger point, this latest "rumor" has to be one of the lamest rumors that AppleInsider.com has ever posted. The general tenor and tone of the comments about a possible Apple HDTV set make me wonder if those commenting have ever visited the TV section of Best Buy, Sears, H. H. Gregg or any other consumer electronics store. They clearly know nothing about the state of the products that Apple would be competing against. Whoever originated this latest AppleInsider.com rumor knows even less.
AppleInsider.com reports that Apple is in negotiations with a Japanese flat panel manufacturer for displays for its new TV. Well, others have already reported that the panel manufacturer is Sharp. Everybody who sells flat panel TVs buys panels from a very small group of suppliers. If the supplier is Japanese, then it is probably Sharp.
AppleInsider.com made my jaw drop with this statement:
Apple's anticipated high-end 55-inch model is expected to compete with "smart TVs" from established television makers like Samsung and LG.
Really, now? If Apple returns to the TV set business, does anybody expect Apple to go after the ordinary [dumb] TVs. Exactly which problem can Apple solve for dumb-TV viewers with a dumb TV of its own? Since 2007, new Apple products have been so awesome that buyers are willing to queue-up for days to get them. Who would queue-up for an ordinary TV even if it has the Apple logo? If it is an Apple HDTV, then you want an set that is based on iOS goodness.
The lamest part of this rumor has to do with the sizes of the three screens--32", 55", and some unknown size in between. As someone else has already said, this is so 2009. This is the kind of move you make when you are just sticking your toe in the water. If Apple were serious with these entries, then it will be in for a major surprise. Sharp, Apple's rumored supplier, is touting its 60", 70", and 80" panels. If Apple re-enters the TV market, then I don't know what it expects to achieve.
Certainly it does not need to sell sets in every possible size. However, I would think it would want to make a splash. Nothing in any part of this rumor sounds like a splash to me. My response to it is "Meh."
Apple better not be thinking that they can sell a 55" 1080p LED TV that normally goes for 2k (give or take) for $3000. They need to make it the same price or lower.
you don't "get it". The extra $1,000 would be worth it, because you could use it to buy iOS apps and content.
I hope that whatever TV functionality they muster in terms of OS that it can (and will) be embedded in future iMacs. My 27" is already the focal point of my NYC studio, and I'm a huge fan of the all-in-one beauty of the concept.
My guess is that you'll get what you are looking for. If not, a Mini ould likely mate up well with the new ATV.
TThat said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set.
I wanted to point out this sentence and reiterate. The "cracking" isn't doing what people hoped Apple would. Combining Apple's HW/OS into a TV takes no leap of thought. It's the easy part. The hard part is everything else beyond the TV that makes cable boxes non standardized, that keeps the content owners and distributors in a very secure symbiotic relationship.
Or course there is Siri making the way you interact with the TV but I also don't think that is the crack when there are still the other issues to deal with. Siri is just an extra tool to improve usability but that doesn't resolve the content and logistics issues.
I am more or less in the market for a new TV for the living room. I am curious to see what surprises Apple has cooked up--everybody who is proclaiming "meh!" already needs to look back at history.
Remember the surprise (and initial dismay) when the iPhone was first announced? "No keyboard? No fit and paste? Expensive as hell! Web apps??" It took us a while to get it and it took Apple a while to polish it, but now, nobody denies that Apple turned the phone world upside down.
Then came the iPad. Shock and dismay at the name, lack of ports, inability to run "real" software and such. It was hard to see what it would be good at--sure, it is a nice toy, but...
So, to everybody who says this is just going to be an expensive LCD with an AppleTV built in--I totally expect you to be wrong. I don't know what the plan is, but I expect it to be well thought out and to be part of a multi-year roll-out...
** Well said hopefully will stop these do goodders once and for all, get a life and look o the future....THINK DIFFERENTLY...some said.
I just read about the Xbox update coming out on Dec 6 and I don't see how an Apple TV could beat this.
With that update what you're getting is what has been rumoured and expected that Apple will be getting. Apple has nothing if they don't have contracts with the networks for content.
The benefit that Apple and MS is more inline with the sat companies. There is really no place those companies can set up shop in the US, while regional cable companies have a maximum limit on their potential customer base do to the number of homes and businesses they have. This limits how much they pay per capita for all those blocks of channels they buy. This means they might be able to get reasonable deals per capita even if they being charged a lot more than their competitors due to the fear factor that content owners felt when bringing TV shows and movies to iTunes Store. We may actually be able to get a decent cost out of this… before the cable companies jack your internet rates, throtle and cap your usage.
Siri TV: "That idea is Legen- wait for it -dary, LEGENDARY Jensonb! It's not on right now, but I found some episodes on Hulu, would you like to watch one of these?"
-List of Episodes displays-
Me: "Yeah, let's watch False Positive."
Siri TV: "Suit up!"
-Episode Plays-
The big challenge is how to make a TV that doesn't suck as bad as all other TVs while still fitting into the infrastructure that exists for all other TVs. One of the hardest things here I think is connections&cables.
iCloud and other stuff will handle that.
iCloud will replace the DVR. The Cable Box can usually be eliminated via a card.
The BluRay player can be retired and replaced with Apple services. So can the game consoles - they will be moved to the den with the old TV. The kids like iGames better anyways.
No ethernet of course, but instead the ability to sync up with other Apple stuff via wireless.
The sound system will be integrated and will use wireless to drive the speakers. You will be able to start with the built-in speakers if you wish, and will be able to add additional speakers (from licen$ed third parties) later.
Just plug 'er in and let 'er rip!
Under that scenario, the AppleTV could be an uncompromised device that still is able to fit into a compromised world.
No. The Apple TV will eliminate and replace that cluttered world. It will offer a better alternative for each POS that clutters things up now. The cluttered world will either exist in its own man cave, the kid's room, or in boxes in the back of the attic.
It will be replaced in the living room with the Apple TV, totally wireless and integrated, and maybe some other optional wireless accessories from the usual suspects, which span from Belkin to iHome to B&W.
I just read about the Xbox update coming out on Dec 6 and I don't see how an Apple TV could beat this.
One's a game console that is louder than a Mac Pro, is a huge power whore, and has a 60% failure rate; the other is a $99 box that uses 6 watts maximum, makes no sound, and, as far as I know, can't fail.
"They're both moving to the big city? can they get along?! Svelte and Bloated: The Story of Two TV Interfaces! Tuesdays on NBC."
And maybe people don't want to use the Xbox interface, Microsoft services, or anything else related to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvuwgA2Gbys
Then present it as such.
Because people present their conjecture as fact. Shoe's on the other foot for me.
And ur a global moderator? Ugh!
I think something like this is essential... the AppleTV has to be both capable of eventually totally replacing the current system while at the same time coexisting with the current system.
Most people will be happy just to get rid of all that crap. The Apple TV will work out of the box to do it.
You mean you present your facts as conjecture? Or do you really have an issue with your shoes?
Can one put a "global moderator" on one's ignore list?
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind everyone's magical leap of logic that allows for 'cracked the TV' to become 'Apple is making a TV' when Apple has made a box that serves their TV purposes for nearly five years.
Yeah... although I haven't played with that thing much. I know maybe three people that own them.
I don't think you understood my post at all, so I must not have been sufficiently clear. I'll try harder.
Apple's ultimate goal should be to destroy the existing system completely. Once that happens, "watching TV" should mean that there is no bluray player or cable box. All paid content would come to a TV in the same way that it comes to an iPad -- through the iTunes/App store, and that happens over 802.lln connected to the Internet (that's the enforced standard). (unpaid content can stream over the local wi-fi from your Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc)
That makes more sense now
wondering if Tim Cook can create the reality distortion field and convince us once again that Apple has just created another 4-year-old technology. multi-touch, siri, et al.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvuwgA2Gbys
Bleck... I just want to see ghetto siri appear in the app store
That one is easy. Steve Jobs didn't say, "We cracked the TV ... again." He also didn't say, "We've been doing TV all wrong." Clearly, his comment meant that Apple had solved a vexing problem. If the TV were satisfying Apple's TV needs, then there would not have been a problem to solve in the first place.
That said, you are correct that it does not follow that the "crack" is an Apple-branded TV set. In fact, I can make and have made the argument that an iOS-based universal remote control or iPad/iPhone/iPod touch could solve most of the problems that many users have with HDTV sets.
To a larger point, this latest "rumor" has to be one of the lamest rumors that AppleInsider.com has ever posted. The general tenor and tone of the comments about a possible Apple HDTV set make me wonder if those commenting have ever visited the TV section of Best Buy, Sears, H. H. Gregg or any other consumer electronics store. They clearly know nothing about the state of the products that Apple would be competing against. Whoever originated this latest AppleInsider.com rumor knows even less.
AppleInsider.com reports that Apple is in negotiations with a Japanese flat panel manufacturer for displays for its new TV. Well, others have already reported that the panel manufacturer is Sharp. Everybody who sells flat panel TVs buys panels from a very small group of suppliers. If the supplier is Japanese, then it is probably Sharp.
AppleInsider.com made my jaw drop with this statement:
Really, now? If Apple returns to the TV set business, does anybody expect Apple to go after the ordinary [dumb] TVs. Exactly which problem can Apple solve for dumb-TV viewers with a dumb TV of its own? Since 2007, new Apple products have been so awesome that buyers are willing to queue-up for days to get them. Who would queue-up for an ordinary TV even if it has the Apple logo? If it is an Apple HDTV, then you want an set that is based on iOS goodness.
The lamest part of this rumor has to do with the sizes of the three screens--32", 55", and some unknown size in between. As someone else has already said, this is so 2009. This is the kind of move you make when you are just sticking your toe in the water. If Apple were serious with these entries, then it will be in for a major surprise. Sharp, Apple's rumored supplier, is touting its 60", 70", and 80" panels. If Apple re-enters the TV market, then I don't know what it expects to achieve.
Certainly it does not need to sell sets in every possible size. However, I would think it would want to make a splash. Nothing in any part of this rumor sounds like a splash to me. My response to it is "Meh."
Well said!
And ur a global moderator? Ugh!
Can one put a "global moderator" on one's ignore list?
Okay, I'll pick on you. You're the third person I've seen mention this nonsense, and it's getting to be bothersome.
What does my being a moderator have to do with anything?
Do you think that you should be allowed to present your guesses as facts? Do you think that that's an appropriate way to present your opinions (because until Apple says so, that's all they are)?
If so, become a tech analyst.
Actually, people will criticize you MORE if you become an analyst because they'll assume you're always wrong. Which is really just being stereotypical and unfair to analysts, but they certainly DO seem to fit that stereotype as though it's their job to do so?