I find it hard to believe that this will happen this soon.
What is especially suspicious is the size of the panels reported. a 32" flat-screentelevision is considered "small" or "cheap" nowadays.
Apple is going to enter the TV market at the very bottom end?
Since when have they ever done this?
Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.
They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.
when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)
if you still have to use the box below for most of your TV watching... what's the point?
It's the future and Apple is ahead of the curve. The days of those hideous boxes are going away. It hasn't happened yet, but the day is coming. Already, we're seeing the beginning of the end for the domination of cable. Cable cancellations are at an all time high as people are beginning to realize they can get content elsewhere. Sometimes better content.
I bought an Apple TV box a year ago. I watch more TV now than I did a year ago, but I watch cable only 1/4 as often as I used to. In fact, the only thing I watch on cable now is football.
It seems contrary to Apple's preferred one-system-fits-all principle, which has served them so well in simplifying their product lines. The device would need different tuners for each region. Even these things change over time such as the recent switches in some countries from analogue to digital terrestrial broadcasts, requiring ugly external boxes.
So, I too am wondering what this could actually look like.
not true
there are slightly different versions of iOS for different devices, carriers, and regions
Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.
They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.
Top quality 4" cellphones (the new midrange) can be had for prices cheaper than the iPhone. Are you saying that the iPhone should be at least 4.25" with built-in 4G?
Since when has Apple needed to offer stuff like big screens or the latest tech? They do VERY well selling midrange hardware for premium prices.
The integration of the hardware and the software, combined with the Apple ecosystem is compelling enough to attract lots of profits.
What a funny thing to say considering "over the air" broadcasting had it's heyday in the 1950's and 60's and is all but gone today.
Do you think Apple's new TV set should have rabbit ears?
I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.
With a whole new set of state of the art ports and cables that connect to nothing that people already own !
Actually, in this case not.
The new "ports" on the display will likely all be wireless connections (Bluetooth 4.0, Airstream/WiFi, etc.) except for the power cord, and the Apple TV box that the display connects to (wirelessly) will almost certainly use HDMI ports for input from your cable box, etc.
Apple formerly invented new ports and connectors, but only when they perceived a need (not, as you imply, solely to make money). But they are moving more and more to wireless technologies wherever they can. I expect the next generation of MacBooks will also use wireless connections for external displays, so that your new Apple TV can also function as a display for your laptop.
What makes this special is the win-win for all parties concerned ... Cept for the box makers.
IOS is secret sauce and the cable providers have almost universally flocked to it.
I have Cablevision at the moment and they have an incredable app for watching just about anything and everything I have access to. I run the app on my iPad on my wires iPad and it even runs on our iPhones and iPod touches. That's a ton of places where we can continue to see the content we're paying for all without the need of a silly and poky slow SA box.
Would they KILL to have it work rolled out on the AppleTV 2? Heck yea! Could you imagine not having to invest in warehouses full of boxes that all cost quite a fair bit more than the $99 AppleTV2 does.... And the IOS app 'just works'.
CableVision
TimeWarner
DiSH or DirecTV
Comcast and FiOS are both working on something similar I think...
They are all in line doing similar things... All be it I think CableVision has had the most success in rolling out just about ALL the channels without too much legal wrangles.. Stuff stored on your PVR and perhaps ON-DEMAND content (PPV too?) might not be working but those are ALL legal objections and not technical ones.
Oh yea...
HBO, Cinemax and perhaps a few more pay channels are also already lined up with IOS offerings of their own.
MBA, NHL, NFL and I'm sure all the other sports are getting their 'apps' ready too.
Could you imagine if Apple made deals with the cable providers ... no not just them but some CONTENT providers too... tho due to contracts with cable companies they might be a little slow going.
Buy an AppleTV and now pick ANY PROVIDER YOU WANT! It won't matter if they 'service your area' or not or are 'blocked by trees' or have a bad line of sight to some satellite. You like their channel lineup they you can click a button and sign up and are now able to access the channels you pay for.
The real fun will kick in when all those carriers are TRULY in competition with each other. Sure, in some RARE places 2 or 3 providers might have to duke it out... However in most of America you have 1 cable choice (and satellite) and thats it.
The Satellite companies are really looking at this as a win... Their equipment is VERY expensive and quite fragile to the elements. 2 things that keep many people away from the service. Imagine if they had a way to sell to EVERYONE in the USA simply by making a deal with Apple to act as their gateway. They could take back some of that EVERY expensive satellite space they are now using to broadcast locals and that alone would be money in the bank for them.
Yea I'm rambling now... but it does make the mind race when you think of the possibilities.
As for the reason WHY cablevision and the others will embrace this is quite simple.. If the satellite companies make the move and then perhaps FiOS ... then everyone will be forced to play or simply give up on that enormous influx of new potential customers... All without having to make special deals with state, local and township polititions who are all quite happy to bury them in as much red tape as it takes to make them go away. All because the incumbent provider already made a sweatheart deal years before.
This is what Steve said when he was quoted as saying we cracked it... I'm almost sure of it.
maybe not exactly like this but i see it happening. the problem now is the content owners are licensing packages of content. Disney says you have to license ESPN to get the Disney Channel. something like this will put the value back into the network operators and content will be the commodity and not the network
when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)
Because bigger is always better? Do you prefer Imax movies or the regular screen ones?
I'm just assuming the Digitimes report here is wrong. I'm very interested in what Apple comes out with and I have high hopes for it. If they come out with a 32" they may as well not even bother. The entry level one needs to be 42". 55" seems to be the most popular size at the moment, and is at the sweet spot of the price/size curve (most bang for the buck).
I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.
I personally don't know anyone who uses their TV tuner. If the Emergency Alert System were sent only over the air, it would be useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909
Well this latest rumor is the worst of all so far. I have absolutely no need for a TV less than 40 ".
That part of the rumor is clearly wrong. Three sizes and two of them are under 40"? Unlikely. I could possibly see 32", 45", and 54" Or maybe 40", 55", and 70". Or any other combination. But no way would there be only 32, 37 and one more size.
That's not to say that there's no need for small TVs. We just bought my mother a 37" TV - and it's perfect for her.
I am among the million of people that are slowly getting rid of cable all together. Apple does not target the 95% of the market but the 5% that does not fit in the "prescribed" group. They offer a premium product with a kick a$$ experience. But don't expect the same experience as the:
Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.
But aren't you able to do that already with a $99 Apple TV box?
I'm wondering why you need to buy a whole new TV in order to watch iTunes content...
I'm not sure there are even 5% of people who are cord cutters and Apple fans.
Supply chain insiders claimed that Apple would initially release 32- and 37-inch versions of the so-called "iTV." [/c]
The ONLY way this would make sense is if Apple is planning on selling a modular "videowall" system:
four displays at 32" = one at 64"
nine displays at 32" = one at 96" (8'!) Finally my desktop will be big enough!
32" LCD prices (from the OEM) are headed for below $100, while 64" LCD prices remain well over $1000 (~$3000 retail). If Apple has developed a bezel-less (or mini-bezel) display, and the software to automatically dock multiple displays, we could see 10+ megapixel displays.
BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.
Comments
I find it hard to believe that this will happen this soon.
What is especially suspicious is the size of the panels reported. a 32" flat-screentelevision is considered "small" or "cheap" nowadays.
Apple is going to enter the TV market at the very bottom end?
Since when have they ever done this?
Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.
They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.
when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)
if you still have to use the box below for most of your TV watching... what's the point?
It's the future and Apple is ahead of the curve. The days of those hideous boxes are going away. It hasn't happened yet, but the day is coming. Already, we're seeing the beginning of the end for the domination of cable. Cable cancellations are at an all time high as people are beginning to realize they can get content elsewhere. Sometimes better content.
I bought an Apple TV box a year ago. I watch more TV now than I did a year ago, but I watch cable only 1/4 as often as I used to. In fact, the only thing I watch on cable now is football.
It seems contrary to Apple's preferred one-system-fits-all principle, which has served them so well in simplifying their product lines. The device would need different tuners for each region. Even these things change over time such as the recent switches in some countries from analogue to digital terrestrial broadcasts, requiring ugly external boxes.
So, I too am wondering what this could actually look like.
not true
there are slightly different versions of iOS for different devices, carriers, and regions
no it's not
you can squeeze more than enough pixels into that size
You can squeeze plenty of pixels into a 3.5" iPhone too. That doesn't mean that I'd like to watch tv on it.
A tv is a home theatre, your own private cinema, and nobody wants a tiny screen, unless they are poor or they live in a 2' x 3' cardboard box.
For Apple to only release a 37" tv max, is leaving a lot of customers out of the picture, as many people would not even consider such a tiny tv.
Top quality 42" televisions (the new "midrange"), can be had for a few hundred dollars. If Apple comes out with a TV it will be a premium product. It should be in the 1,000 dollar or so range and be at least 60" with built in surround sound, or some such equivalent.
They will not come out with some tiny $200, 32" TV as their first TV product.
Top quality 4" cellphones (the new midrange) can be had for prices cheaper than the iPhone. Are you saying that the iPhone should be at least 4.25" with built-in 4G?
Since when has Apple needed to offer stuff like big screens or the latest tech? They do VERY well selling midrange hardware for premium prices.
The integration of the hardware and the software, combined with the Apple ecosystem is compelling enough to attract lots of profits.
What a funny thing to say considering "over the air" broadcasting had it's heyday in the 1950's and 60's and is all but gone today.
Do you think Apple's new TV set should have rabbit ears?
I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.
With a whole new set of state of the art ports and cables that connect to nothing that people already own !
Actually, in this case not.
The new "ports" on the display will likely all be wireless connections (Bluetooth 4.0, Airstream/WiFi, etc.) except for the power cord, and the Apple TV box that the display connects to (wirelessly) will almost certainly use HDMI ports for input from your cable box, etc.
Apple formerly invented new ports and connectors, but only when they perceived a need (not, as you imply, solely to make money). But they are moving more and more to wireless technologies wherever they can. I expect the next generation of MacBooks will also use wireless connections for external displays, so that your new Apple TV can also function as a display for your laptop.
For Apple to only release a 37" tv max, is leaving a lot of customers out of the picture, as many people would not even consider such a tiny tv.
I agree.
IOS is secret sauce and the cable providers have almost universally flocked to it.
I have Cablevision at the moment and they have an incredable app for watching just about anything and everything I have access to. I run the app on my iPad on my wires iPad and it even runs on our iPhones and iPod touches. That's a ton of places where we can continue to see the content we're paying for all without the need of a silly and poky slow SA box.
Would they KILL to have it work rolled out on the AppleTV 2? Heck yea! Could you imagine not having to invest in warehouses full of boxes that all cost quite a fair bit more than the $99 AppleTV2 does.... And the IOS app 'just works'.
CableVision
TimeWarner
DiSH or DirecTV
Comcast and FiOS are both working on something similar I think...
They are all in line doing similar things... All be it I think CableVision has had the most success in rolling out just about ALL the channels without too much legal wrangles.. Stuff stored on your PVR and perhaps ON-DEMAND content (PPV too?) might not be working but those are ALL legal objections and not technical ones.
Oh yea...
HBO, Cinemax and perhaps a few more pay channels are also already lined up with IOS offerings of their own.
MBA, NHL, NFL and I'm sure all the other sports are getting their 'apps' ready too.
Could you imagine if Apple made deals with the cable providers ... no not just them but some CONTENT providers too... tho due to contracts with cable companies they might be a little slow going.
Buy an AppleTV and now pick ANY PROVIDER YOU WANT! It won't matter if they 'service your area' or not or are 'blocked by trees' or have a bad line of sight to some satellite. You like their channel lineup they you can click a button and sign up and are now able to access the channels you pay for.
The real fun will kick in when all those carriers are TRULY in competition with each other. Sure, in some RARE places 2 or 3 providers might have to duke it out... However in most of America you have 1 cable choice (and satellite) and thats it.
The Satellite companies are really looking at this as a win... Their equipment is VERY expensive and quite fragile to the elements. 2 things that keep many people away from the service. Imagine if they had a way to sell to EVERYONE in the USA simply by making a deal with Apple to act as their gateway. They could take back some of that EVERY expensive satellite space they are now using to broadcast locals and that alone would be money in the bank for them.
Yea I'm rambling now... but it does make the mind race when you think of the possibilities.
As for the reason WHY cablevision and the others will embrace this is quite simple.. If the satellite companies make the move and then perhaps FiOS ... then everyone will be forced to play or simply give up on that enormous influx of new potential customers... All without having to make special deals with state, local and township polititions who are all quite happy to bury them in as much red tape as it takes to make them go away. All because the incumbent provider already made a sweatheart deal years before.
This is what Steve said when he was quoted as saying we cracked it... I'm almost sure of it.
when Apple came out with the iPod everyone said it was lame.... 'who'd want another mp3 player'
if Apple comes out with a 32" TV it will more than likely be a success because it will change the way we view TV and therefore it will not need to be 60". Why does the average person need a 60" TV anyway?? (real question not rhetorical...)
Because bigger is always better? Do you prefer Imax movies or the regular screen ones?
I'm just assuming the Digitimes report here is wrong. I'm very interested in what Apple comes out with and I have high hopes for it. If they come out with a 32" they may as well not even bother. The entry level one needs to be 42". 55" seems to be the most popular size at the moment, and is at the sweet spot of the price/size curve (most bang for the buck).
I think the original poster was referring to the TV as a device capable of receiving FCC licensed television broadcasts as well as federal (EAS) Emergency Alert System messages. Otherwise I don't think it could be advertised or sold as a 'Television' in the the United States. Certainly the use of over the air broadcast has greatly diminished recently, however in the US it is the highest quality digital signal available, especially for HD since it is uncompressed. Of course you have to be within a range of about 50 mi. (80 km) for it to work.
I personally don't know anyone who uses their TV tuner. If the Emergency Alert System were sent only over the air, it would be useless.
Well this latest rumor is the worst of all so far. I have absolutely no need for a TV less than 40 ".
That part of the rumor is clearly wrong. Three sizes and two of them are under 40"? Unlikely. I could possibly see 32", 45", and 54" Or maybe 40", 55", and 70". Or any other combination. But no way would there be only 32, 37 and one more size.
That's not to say that there's no need for small TVs. We just bought my mother a 37" TV - and it's perfect for her.
These sizes are way too small. It will be a disaster. They should consider 46", 55", and 65", at a minimum.
However, I am quite confident that Apple is not stepping into this business without a lot of research.
Agreed. No one is going to replace their 40"+ tv with a smaller Apple Tv. I think these rumors are just that.....rumors.
You are describing granddads TV, NOT the TV of the future.
I am describing TV as is known today. People buy things to use them straight away, and not in some hazy, undefined futuristic world of your own
Something all tvs in my house are able to do (!)
Exactly! Your existing TV can already do all sorts of things.
So why not buy a $99 Apple TV and use the TV you already have?
You just used a strawman argument on YOURSELF. Hilarious. Apple is not going to release something like that.
What strawman argument?
It sounds like Apple will be making a monitor... and people are already using some sort of cable box or DVR.
I personally don't know anyone who uses their TV tuner.
So what? Shall we just reallocate the TV spectrum then since you don't use it?
I am among the million of people that are slowly getting rid of cable all together. Apple does not target the 95% of the market but the 5% that does not fit in the "prescribed" group. They offer a premium product with a kick a$$ experience. But don't expect the same experience as the:
Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.
But aren't you able to do that already with a $99 Apple TV box?
I'm wondering why you need to buy a whole new TV in order to watch iTunes content...
I'm not sure there are even 5% of people who are cord cutters and Apple fans.
Supply chain insiders claimed that Apple would initially release 32- and 37-inch versions of the so-called "iTV." [/c]
The ONLY way this would make sense is if Apple is planning on selling a modular "videowall" system:
four displays at 32" = one at 64"
nine displays at 32" = one at 96" (8'!) Finally my desktop will be big enough!
32" LCD prices (from the OEM) are headed for below $100, while 64" LCD prices remain well over $1000 (~$3000 retail). If Apple has developed a bezel-less (or mini-bezel) display, and the software to automatically dock multiple displays, we could see 10+ megapixel displays.
BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.