Apple's first step toward building a full-fledged television set could be an all-in-one iMac with built in TV functionality, one analyst believes.
In October 1993, Apple introduced the Macintosh TV. As a limited edition, the LC-520 came with a cable ready TV tuner card. It was discontinued after 10,000 units.
Let's hope an iMac with integral TV functionality (if produced) fares better.
No one really wants a full computer instead of their television.
People psychologically equate computers with work and televisions with relaxation. People don't want the two to mix, despite all tech industry attempts to get them to do so (Six Degrees of Google TV, anyone?).
Televisions are complex enough as it is. I highly doubt making them even more complex by mating them with a fully-functional iMac is the solution Steve Jobs was referring to when he told Isaacson that he'd "nailed" the problem with TVs.
Apple may add TV functionality to iMacs (though I doubt they will), but I don't think such a device will be a stepping stone toward an iHDTV. If Apple does enter the television market, it will be a true television, with a simplified and elegant UI as only Apple would design one.
my 27" iMac running SlingPlayer (browser plug-in) already makes a great TV for the kitchen/breakfast nook where it sits. use it all the time. plus can multitask! all you need is a $150 Slingbox, and of course then can watch anywhere on anything.
and for my big screen HDTV, iPad mirroring plus AppleTV provides all the onscreen apps i'll ever want. and iOS universal remote apps (with IR blaster of some sort) can run your whole A/V setup too.
All Apple really needs to do is add HDMI inputs to Apple TV and overhaul the crummy Remote app.
it's clear almost all the pundits writing about Apple HDTV rumors don't really know crap about video and what you can already do today.
* PVR for tuner and cable signal. (requires a Netdrive or Time Capsule)
what about PVR functionality provided in the iCloud?
no need for duplicating recordings locally ... picture the advantage if heaps of people record the same TV programme ... 1 recording serving heaps of consumers on multiple devices ...
That's fine for HBO, Showtime, Starz and their ilk, but .....
And then what about the local affiliates. Are they now going to die out or will need an antenna system or will will Apple have a special relay that works by your GPS, WiFI, and/or IP address to get you your local channels.
This is the nut that needs to be cracked.
The local OTA broadcasters all run successful ad sales programs, and the FCC "must carry" rules are the trade cable/phone companies make in exchange for their franchise monopoly on last mile delivery. So....... That's not really the nut that needs to be cracked.
The big issue is price of unbundled content when the content is " less than compelling" for a large part of the population. That's what is really bothering the content creators.
Steve Jobs said the problem is people do not want to buy yet another box to plug in to their TV.
But I was thinking, if the iPad (or in this case iMac) had a small TV transmitter, the TV could just tune-in to it, no box required.
An apartment block, lots of iPads/iMacs all merrily broadcasting away. And where in this scheme is the iPad/iMac getting the material it is transmitting from, not to mention the power - in the case of an iPad?
There are two things I want from a television. The first is a system where I can program the channels in any order I want. If I want 575 on the satellite box to be number 1 I ought to be able to do that. There is software that lets people program all the memory channels on thwie ham radios on their computers and upload it. Why not for TV?
The second is to get rid of 16:9 and go 16:12. The picture will still be 16:9. But the TV would be taller. Let the bottom of the screen be used only for all the on screen junk they keep putting over the picture. Let channel ID, closed captioning and all that junk be below the screen so that I can see all of what I want to watch.
They wonder why fewer people watch TV. Part of it is because we can't watch the shows. Pop ups advertising the upcoming show keeps blocking the view.
I guess I am a "no one". I got rid of my TV long ago and have been using only iMacs and el Gato's eyeTV and good external speakers as my entertainment center. (of course I live in a small house and prefer to spend my money on quality items that give me the most bang for the buck). I would definitely buy an iMacTV.
Amazing how few people seem to be aware of Elgato tuners and accelerators and EyeTV as a useful iMac or MacBook video accessory. Sure, you have to use it with an antenna or cable input, and encrypted channels have to be piped through a set-top box. The cable providers have done their best to clamp down on access to their "premium" cable-only channels, which makes tuning them a kludgy business compared to a couple years ago. But EyeTV exports recordings to an iPod or iPad format in iTunes - 720p to be sure but much more compacted. I have more than 300 unencrypted TV shows recorded in iTunes on my iMac hard drive that we can easily view using AirPlay or Stream To Me to our iPads, iPods and iPhones, WiFi to our other computers, or Apple TV to televisions in our family room and our kitchen.
I'm not describing my approach to brag, but to broaden awareness of what's in the marketplace today. This stuff is already here, but it's all separate and complicated. Look for new products from Apple that will pull much of it together into a simple, integrated package along with all the streaming content that's out there today.
Apple's first step toward building a full-fledged television set could be an all-in-one iMac with built in TV functionality, one analyst believes.
"We think this makes sense because ... Apple could effectively start with what they already have on the manufacturing line and slowly push their offering from 27 inches and scale up from there to 32 inches and then move on to the 42, 50 and 55 inch market."
Apple may or may not add TV functionality to iMacs, but the reasoning here is specious.
There is no such thing as a 27", 42" or 50" "market." These are artificial definitions that are closer to what used to be called a "price point" than a market.
Price points are also, for the most part artificially constructed by the seller/marketer. It doesn't cost that much more to make a 70" TV than it does a 27" TV.
You know, it's actually getting kind of depressing. I realize AI needs a constant inflow of fresh blood, but by running a story on every random "prediction" by every random "analyst" the site devalues itself to the point of absurdity.
Imagining that Apple might make an iMac with TV functionality as a warmup to a full fledged Apple branded TV is about as insightful or informed as the average post in the forums. Why even bother with the whole "analyst" game? Why not just start posting articles based on what the forum members think?
"Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
Why not? Every bit the quality of prognostication that seems to be making up more and more of the articles at AI.
Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
I hadn't heard that! People were wondering what the $80,000,000,000.00 was for!
Wow, that's new. I still have my "Director's Edition" PowerMac 5500 with its tuner card sitting alongside the GeoPort... the net modem that wasn't, at 9600bps... I knew then it was the future.
I don't see apple dealing with all the major networks working out package bundles and becoming essentially a "cable provider". Generally, Apple enters(or creates) a market when they see an opportunity to do something special. While Apple may make a tv, I doubt it. Its already a absurdly competitive market without large margins. If they do, it will be with a product that does something that no one else is doing. Just adding a tuner to front row is not their style. '
I would be interested to see them make a tv(arm or intel low voltage powered)that is compatible with the RVU standard:
This would not free us from the cable company, but it would at least get rid of the cable box. If they do allow some control of the interface(or say the interface can be offloaded to an Ipad or Ipod like remote), apple could potentially release TV with an amazing interface if nothing else. Add apps, airplay, and direct streaming of itunes content, and you might just have winner.
OK. I've got questions, but first: here in Germany I've installed 6 Elgato EyeTV systems, 4 using satellite feeds and 2 using cable. All systems use a Mac to receive, record, play back anywhere thru-out the house, and on all iOS devices using Wi-Fi OR 3G. All are receiving paid content from Sky and Sky HD, although my first system 3 years ago was hooked up to Unity Media/Arena.
The EyeTV interface is golden in comparison to a cable/sat box.... although I think Apple themselves could do even better.
So.... Question:
What is it exactly that has you folks in the US tied to your trash cable/sat boxes? They are essentially "free" here too, but the ~$150,00 extra for a set-up above, is more than worth it... 100's more than the leased or purchased box.
Note: in all of the receiver boxes here, you need a CI-card module (legal) too decrypt the streams for Nagravision. In America, do the cable-co.'s all use something different, or are the standardized?
Curious.
BTW: I have PiP with Elgato, and use my iMac 27" as an entertainment system, since it's also hooked up to a **Teufel 2.1 BR system. I even have AirPlay installed on it. Two of my buddies use Mac mini's instead (also with AirPlay) hooked up to monster screens with Onkyo 5.1 receivers. What are we doing wrong? What are we missing... besides Netflix and Hulu which we unfortunately can't receive here?
"Our" Macs already ARE TVs and entertainment systems. The "extra" tech and software cost is negligible, and I think Apple could do all of it for a little more than $50,-/component cost.
So basically, what is it NOW that's keeping them from integrating the "missing tech" and software from the AppleTV as we know it, apart from the current size being a bit too cramped?
** Freaking GREAT sound, and also comes in stand-alone speaker set. German engineering for the win
Amazing how few people seem to be aware of Elgato tuners and accelerators and EyeTV as a useful iMac or MacBook video accessory. Sure, you have to use it with an antenna or cable input, and encrypted channels have to be piped through a set-top box. The cable providers have done their best to clamp down on access to their "premium" cable-only channels, which makes tuning them a kludgy business compared to a couple years ago. But EyeTV exports recordings to an iPod or iPad format in iTunes - 720p to be sure but much more compacted. I have more than 300 unencrypted TV shows recorded in iTunes on my iMac hard drive that we can easily view using AirPlay or Stream To Me to our iPads, iPods and iPhones, WiFi to our other computers, or Apple TV to televisions in our family room and our kitchen.
I'm not describing my approach to brag, but to broaden awareness of what's in the marketplace today. This stuff is already here, but it's all separate and complicated. Look for new products from Apple that will pull much of it together into a simple, integrated package along with all the streaming content that's out there today.
Just saw your post after already stating the same: EyeTV is really great stuff.
So if you see this: what makes the EyeTV so difficult to program in the US?
We just slide our cards in either the EyeTV/Sat or a Terratec H7 Cable receiver (each about 4.5x7x2") equipped with a CI-module, do a channel scan.... and Voila!... it's all there to organize into favorites, smart lists, smart recording, etc. etc. Including HD channels and ESPN America/Classic.
I personally don't watch any "live" TV at all any more, excluding footy (soccer to y'all . Even NFL and CFB games I respectfully start to watch about 30-45 minutes into the game after starting a recording, just to skip all of the commercials.
You know, it's actually getting kind of depressing. I realize AI needs a constant inflow of fresh blood, but by running a story on every random "prediction" by every random "analyst" the site devalues itself to the point of absurdity.
Imagining that Apple might make an iMac with TV functionality as a warmup to a full fledged Apple branded TV is about as insightful or informed as the average post in the forums. Why even bother with the whole "analyst" game? Why not just start posting articles based on what the forum members think?
"Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
Why not? Every bit the quality of prognostication that seems to be making up more and more of the articles at AI.
Sorry, I think that might have been me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
The only way I can see Apple changing the game world-wide is with a fleet of their own Satellites linking to something like the Panasonic system above with a local modular Tuner, with the resulting interface providing the user with a single screen program guide unifying all content available from all sources connected to the box; from whats coming from the satellite, whats in the DVD player, what's on the local DT channels to what downloaded content is available on the iMac or media server.
Comments
But I was thinking, if the iPad (or in this case iMac) had a small TV transmitter, the TV could just tune-in to it, no box required.
Apple's first step toward building a full-fledged television set could be an all-in-one iMac with built in TV functionality, one analyst believes.
In October 1993, Apple introduced the Macintosh TV. As a limited edition, the LC-520 came with a cable ready TV tuner card. It was discontinued after 10,000 units.
Let's hope an iMac with integral TV functionality (if produced) fares better.
No one really wants a full computer instead of their television.
People psychologically equate computers with work and televisions with relaxation. People don't want the two to mix, despite all tech industry attempts to get them to do so (Six Degrees of Google TV, anyone?).
Televisions are complex enough as it is. I highly doubt making them even more complex by mating them with a fully-functional iMac is the solution Steve Jobs was referring to when he told Isaacson that he'd "nailed" the problem with TVs.
Apple may add TV functionality to iMacs (though I doubt they will), but I don't think such a device will be a stepping stone toward an iHDTV. If Apple does enter the television market, it will be a true television, with a simplified and elegant UI as only Apple would design one.
and for my big screen HDTV, iPad mirroring plus AppleTV provides all the onscreen apps i'll ever want. and iOS universal remote apps (with IR blaster of some sort) can run your whole A/V setup too.
All Apple really needs to do is add HDMI inputs to Apple TV and overhaul the crummy Remote app.
it's clear almost all the pundits writing about Apple HDTV rumors don't really know crap about video and what you can already do today.
Ah yes, PIP, the feature everyone asks for but no one uses.
lol! As someone who sells TV's this certainly made me chuckle...
I do hope Apple release a TV set soon 'cause I'd get to demo/play on it all day
* PVR for tuner and cable signal. (requires a Netdrive or Time Capsule)
what about PVR functionality provided in the iCloud?
no need for duplicating recordings locally ... picture the advantage if heaps of people record the same TV programme ... 1 recording serving heaps of consumers on multiple devices ...
not sure about the legal implications tho!
That's fine for HBO, Showtime, Starz and their ilk, but .....
And then what about the local affiliates. Are they now going to die out or will need an antenna system or will will Apple have a special relay that works by your GPS, WiFI, and/or IP address to get you your local channels.
This is the nut that needs to be cracked.
The local OTA broadcasters all run successful ad sales programs, and the FCC "must carry" rules are the trade cable/phone companies make in exchange for their franchise monopoly on last mile delivery. So....... That's not really the nut that needs to be cracked.
The big issue is price of unbundled content when the content is " less than compelling" for a large part of the population. That's what is really bothering the content creators.
Steve Jobs said the problem is people do not want to buy yet another box to plug in to their TV.
But I was thinking, if the iPad (or in this case iMac) had a small TV transmitter, the TV could just tune-in to it, no box required.
An apartment block, lots of iPads/iMacs all merrily broadcasting away. And where in this scheme is the iPad/iMac getting the material it is transmitting from, not to mention the power - in the case of an iPad?
The second is to get rid of 16:9 and go 16:12. The picture will still be 16:9. But the TV would be taller. Let the bottom of the screen be used only for all the on screen junk they keep putting over the picture. Let channel ID, closed captioning and all that junk be below the screen so that I can see all of what I want to watch.
They wonder why fewer people watch TV. Part of it is because we can't watch the shows. Pop ups advertising the upcoming show keeps blocking the view.
I guess I am a "no one". I got rid of my TV long ago and have been using only iMacs and el Gato's eyeTV and good external speakers as my entertainment center. (of course I live in a small house and prefer to spend my money on quality items that give me the most bang for the buck). I would definitely buy an iMacTV.
Amazing how few people seem to be aware of Elgato tuners and accelerators and EyeTV as a useful iMac or MacBook video accessory. Sure, you have to use it with an antenna or cable input, and encrypted channels have to be piped through a set-top box. The cable providers have done their best to clamp down on access to their "premium" cable-only channels, which makes tuning them a kludgy business compared to a couple years ago. But EyeTV exports recordings to an iPod or iPad format in iTunes - 720p to be sure but much more compacted. I have more than 300 unencrypted TV shows recorded in iTunes on my iMac hard drive that we can easily view using AirPlay or Stream To Me to our iPads, iPods and iPhones, WiFi to our other computers, or Apple TV to televisions in our family room and our kitchen.
I'm not describing my approach to brag, but to broaden awareness of what's in the marketplace today. This stuff is already here, but it's all separate and complicated. Look for new products from Apple that will pull much of it together into a simple, integrated package along with all the streaming content that's out there today.
Apple's first step toward building a full-fledged television set could be an all-in-one iMac with built in TV functionality, one analyst believes.
"We think this makes sense because ... Apple could effectively start with what they already have on the manufacturing line and slowly push their offering from 27 inches and scale up from there to 32 inches and then move on to the 42, 50 and 55 inch market."
Apple may or may not add TV functionality to iMacs, but the reasoning here is specious.
There is no such thing as a 27", 42" or 50" "market." These are artificial definitions that are closer to what used to be called a "price point" than a market.
Price points are also, for the most part artificially constructed by the seller/marketer. It doesn't cost that much more to make a 70" TV than it does a 27" TV.
Imagining that Apple might make an iMac with TV functionality as a warmup to a full fledged Apple branded TV is about as insightful or informed as the average post in the forums. Why even bother with the whole "analyst" game? Why not just start posting articles based on what the forum members think?
"Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
Why not? Every bit the quality of prognostication that seems to be making up more and more of the articles at AI.
"
Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
I hadn't heard that! People were wondering what the $80,000,000,000.00 was for!
And all this time, I thought the iMac have always been a TV!
I'm betting on a straight-on TV, with buttonless touch remote, it's own unique OS and it's UI? Apple TV improved.
I don't see apple dealing with all the major networks working out package bundles and becoming essentially a "cable provider". Generally, Apple enters(or creates) a market when they see an opportunity to do something special. While Apple may make a tv, I doubt it. Its already a absurdly competitive market without large margins. If they do, it will be with a product that does something that no one else is doing. Just adding a tuner to front row is not their style. '
I would be interested to see them make a tv(arm or intel low voltage powered)that is compatible with the RVU standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVU_protocol
This would not free us from the cable company, but it would at least get rid of the cable box. If they do allow some control of the interface(or say the interface can be offloaded to an Ipad or Ipod like remote), apple could potentially release TV with an amazing interface if nothing else. Add apps, airplay, and direct streaming of itunes content, and you might just have winner.
OK. I've got questions, but first: here in Germany I've installed 6 Elgato EyeTV systems, 4 using satellite feeds and 2 using cable. All systems use a Mac to receive, record, play back anywhere thru-out the house, and on all iOS devices using Wi-Fi OR 3G. All are receiving paid content from Sky and Sky HD, although my first system 3 years ago was hooked up to Unity Media/Arena.
The EyeTV interface is golden in comparison to a cable/sat box.... although I think Apple themselves could do even better.
So.... Question:
What is it exactly that has you folks in the US tied to your trash cable/sat boxes? They are essentially "free" here too, but the ~$150,00 extra for a set-up above, is more than worth it... 100's more than the leased or purchased box.
Note: in all of the receiver boxes here, you need a CI-card module (legal) too decrypt the streams for Nagravision. In America, do the cable-co.'s all use something different, or are the standardized?
Curious.
BTW: I have PiP with Elgato, and use my iMac 27" as an entertainment system, since it's also hooked up to a **Teufel 2.1 BR system. I even have AirPlay installed on it. Two of my buddies use Mac mini's instead (also with AirPlay) hooked up to monster screens with Onkyo 5.1 receivers. What are we doing wrong? What are we missing... besides Netflix and Hulu which we unfortunately can't receive here?
"Our" Macs already ARE TVs and entertainment systems. The "extra" tech and software cost is negligible, and I think Apple could do all of it for a little more than $50,-/component cost.
So basically, what is it NOW that's keeping them from integrating the "missing tech" and software from the AppleTV as we know it, apart from the current size being a bit too cramped?
** Freaking GREAT sound, and also comes in stand-alone speaker set. German engineering for the win
Amazing how few people seem to be aware of Elgato tuners and accelerators and EyeTV as a useful iMac or MacBook video accessory. Sure, you have to use it with an antenna or cable input, and encrypted channels have to be piped through a set-top box. The cable providers have done their best to clamp down on access to their "premium" cable-only channels, which makes tuning them a kludgy business compared to a couple years ago. But EyeTV exports recordings to an iPod or iPad format in iTunes - 720p to be sure but much more compacted. I have more than 300 unencrypted TV shows recorded in iTunes on my iMac hard drive that we can easily view using AirPlay or Stream To Me to our iPads, iPods and iPhones, WiFi to our other computers, or Apple TV to televisions in our family room and our kitchen.
I'm not describing my approach to brag, but to broaden awareness of what's in the marketplace today. This stuff is already here, but it's all separate and complicated. Look for new products from Apple that will pull much of it together into a simple, integrated package along with all the streaming content that's out there today.
Just saw your post after already stating the same: EyeTV is really great stuff.
So if you see this: what makes the EyeTV so difficult to program in the US?
We just slide our cards in either the EyeTV/Sat or a Terratec H7 Cable receiver (each about 4.5x7x2") equipped with a CI-module, do a channel scan.... and Voila!... it's all there to organize into favorites, smart lists, smart recording, etc. etc. Including HD channels and ESPN America/Classic.
I personally don't watch any "live" TV at all any more, excluding footy (soccer to y'all
You know, it's actually getting kind of depressing. I realize AI needs a constant inflow of fresh blood, but by running a story on every random "prediction" by every random "analyst" the site devalues itself to the point of absurdity.
Imagining that Apple might make an iMac with TV functionality as a warmup to a full fledged Apple branded TV is about as insightful or informed as the average post in the forums. Why even bother with the whole "analyst" game? Why not just start posting articles based on what the forum members think?
"Apple seen to be putting up fleet of satellites: According to some random dude on the internet, Apple is likely to launch its own network of telecommunication satellites sometime in the next few years. The move is claimed to represent an end-run around cell carriers and ISPs, allowing Apple more flexibility in rolling out new phone and internet services."
Why not? Every bit the quality of prognostication that seems to be making up more and more of the articles at AI.
Sorry, I think that might have been me.
The only way I can see Apple changing the game world-wide is with a fleet of their own Satellites linking to something like the Panasonic system above with a local modular Tuner, with the resulting interface providing the user with a single screen program guide unifying all content available from all sources connected to the box; from whats coming from the satellite, whats in the DVD player, what's on the local DT channels to what downloaded content is available on the iMac or media server.
Sorry, I think that might have been me.
Are you laughing at your own post???