well, all tv set manufacturers manage just fine with the problem, but that's not the point, what we see and read is lazy, sloppy reporting from journalists and analysts. If you call it a TV it must have a tuner, otherwise is not. It should be made clear from the outset so no to create false expectation from consumers that lead to disappointment once the product is launched. It has nothing to do with Apple, they haven't said a thing about it, but all to do with people reporting the rumours.
It is possible to call it something other than a TV, thereby negating the requirement that it receive ATSC signals in the US. It would just be a monitor with capability to show internet programming.
The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.
I think you are a little out of touch with the disposable income in this country. It is the privilege of the 1% and the old codgers. I fall in the latter category with a 50" DLP and enough disposable income to buy a 55" Apple Entertainment Device (at age 72).
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 still view most of my programming over the air or free to air. Netflix fills in the gaps. And it is free, except for the $9 Netflix bill. And the quality is better than anything available on cable or satellite.
This is FTA.
This is OTA.
If you have an antenna or rabbit ears, it is not difficult to view OTA on a monitor. Those who have the capability should be able to use it.
The single guys I know all have the largest TVs. They're the only ones with disposable income to spend on something so frivolous.
My point was the physical difficulty - a small person would never want to try to install (or relocate) a larger (64"? 96"?) display alone, whereas with a modular display they could.
So what? Shall we just reallocate the TV spectrum then since you don't use it?
No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?
What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.
Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.
No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?
What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.
Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.
I'm fine with that I just don't think they can legally call it a TV unless it has a tuner.
I'm sure that it will be a marabous product but I'm also sure that it will be priced way beyond what most people can afford, think Mac Pro Tower & you'll see where I'm coming from.
I'm sure that it will be a marabous product but I'm also sure that it will be priced way beyond what most people can afford, think Mac Pro Tower & you'll see where I'm coming from.
That's a nonsensical comparison. The Mac Pro is not nor has it ever been designed for "most people".
There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.
fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.
and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.
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.
That has already been done numerous times with computer displays for trade shows and other things. Bezels and the need to match uniformity are things that can make it unappealing. Displays and televisions do not match one another even if they are the same brand/model/etc. This includes basically every display Apple has put out in the past. Some other manufacturers have complex cross profiling systems and panel blocking algorithms meant to correct for this via internal processing. Another issue is the bezel. Then there's assembly with all of the brackets. Somehow I can't see display tiling catching on in a consumer setting, especially with the present weight of televisions.
Also FWIW I've seen 40" plasmas hung for years. Obviously they're not using drywall anchors and cheap toggle bolts, but it can be done.
There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.
what people call the Apple Tax is in fact the "design" price. The ultra book segment VS the MBA proves it. When the PC market has to come up with a design (as oppose to a bunch of stats in a plastic box) they sell at the same prices has Apple.
fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.
and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.
This is correct. In the US, virtually every TV set is required to include an integrated ATSC tuner by Federal law. What also seems lost on most posters here is that cable and satellite providers are losing subscribers. This is precipitated by two conditions:
Tough economic times have motivated viewers to reevaluate the value received for their entertainment dollars spent on pay TV.
The number of free viewing options available via over-the-air (OTA) multicasting satisfies the television viewing needs of many viewers.
There are today websites dedicated to the disconnect movement. TV antennas, both manufactured and homemade, are popular products and issues for discussion.
I will repeat here what I have posted before. The issue with TV is not lack of content. There are cable systems that have more than 3000 numbered channels. Even for viewers who have only OTA television may receive more than 50 subchannels. I have no gotten into things like Blu-ray players, game consoles, and IPTV. The issue with TV is management of the content. Our current content management paradigm is an evolution of a paradigm that was developed at a time when many homes received only three channels. If Apple returns to the TV set business with a family of sets that makes it as easy to manage 50-3000 channels as it used to be to manage 3 channels, then it will be a huge success.
I figure I'm saving huge bucks by doing so as cable is a huge rip off especially if you don't spend a lot of time in front of the tube. Not that this is a virtue as I spend time in front of my iPad instead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.
It does save one a huge amount of money. Basic cable is enough everry month to cover the cost of seeing a movie in a real theater. Note the screen in the theater is many times larger than any TV I'd be willing to buy.
Quote:
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.
You would be surprised. An iPad with 3G can go a long way to covering ones communications needs. Infact I'm doing so well with my iPad I could see giving up my iPhone for a cheaply pay as you go phone. It is all about controlling cost while maximizing your communications capacity.
If I need bulk access to the Internet I can always grab the laptop and slip into a library or something. People need to realize there is more to life than the Internet. The fewer dollars I spend on it the more I have for trips, home repairs and tools. Pretty simple really.
you can squeeze more than enough pixels into that size
Not sure it is a pixel issue. I think the issue is just size. I think the average consumer purchasing an HDTV is looking for a minimum of 40 or 42 inch. I don't remember where I read that, but I'll repost it if I can find it.
Nobody wants to watch football on a slightly larger than a display sized TV. 37" would be a deal breaker for me unless it folds my laundry.
Comments
BTW, a 32" display is probably the largest one a single consumer would want to try to hang on their wall.
That's a matter of opinion. I think that kids are frivolous. I'd much rather have a huge tv.
well, all tv set manufacturers manage just fine with the problem, but that's not the point, what we see and read is lazy, sloppy reporting from journalists and analysts. If you call it a TV it must have a tuner, otherwise is not. It should be made clear from the outset so no to create false expectation from consumers that lead to disappointment once the product is launched. It has nothing to do with Apple, they haven't said a thing about it, but all to do with people reporting the rumours.
It is possible to call it something other than a TV, thereby negating the requirement that it receive ATSC signals in the US. It would just be a monitor with capability to show internet programming.
I think you are a little out of touch with the disposable income in this country. It is the privilege of the 1% and the old codgers. I fall in the latter category with a 50" DLP and enough disposable income to buy a 55" Apple Entertainment Device (at age 72).
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 still view most of my programming over the air or free to air. Netflix fills in the gaps. And it is free, except for the $9 Netflix bill. And the quality is better than anything available on cable or satellite.
This is FTA.
This is OTA.
If you have an antenna or rabbit ears, it is not difficult to view OTA on a monitor. Those who have the capability should be able to use it.
My point was the physical difficulty - a small person would never want to try to install (or relocate) a larger (64"? 96"?) display alone, whereas with a modular display they could.
I fall in the latter category with a 50" DLP and enough disposable income to buy a 55" Apple Entertainment Device (at age 72).
Apple Entertainment Device? AED? Or Automatic External Defibrillator?
Well, you are 72
So what? Shall we just reallocate the TV spectrum then since you don't use it?
No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?
What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.
Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.
Has it occurred to anyone that Apple can deliver a major blow to Samsung by outcompeting it on its own turf?
lol
/thread
No one ever suggested that. Is it too much trouble for you to discuss things that people actually say rather than making things up?
What I am saying is that the market for people who don't need a tuner is huge enough that there's no reason to think that a TV without a tuner couldn't sell. Heck, there are already monitors being sold today.
Apple learned long ago that there is a time to break with tradition and if you have to ignore a portion of the market that it's not the end of the world.
I'm fine with that I just don't think they can legally call it a TV unless it has a tuner.
I'm sure that it will be a marabous product but I'm also sure that it will be priced way beyond what most people can afford, think Mac Pro Tower & you'll see where I'm coming from.
That's a nonsensical comparison. The Mac Pro is not nor has it ever been designed for "most people".
There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.
That's a matter of opinion. I think that kids are frivolous. I'd much rather have a huge tv.
LOL. And I agree.
- no tuner support, iptv support
.
fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.
and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.
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.
That has already been done numerous times with computer displays for trade shows and other things. Bezels and the need to match uniformity are things that can make it unappealing. Displays and televisions do not match one another even if they are the same brand/model/etc. This includes basically every display Apple has put out in the past. Some other manufacturers have complex cross profiling systems and panel blocking algorithms meant to correct for this via internal processing. Another issue is the bezel. Then there's assembly with all of the brackets. Somehow I can't see display tiling catching on in a consumer setting, especially with the present weight of televisions.
Also FWIW I've seen 40" plasmas hung for years. Obviously they're not using drywall anchors and cheap toggle bolts, but it can be done.
There is no Apple Tax anymore. The 90s are over. Have been for a while.
what people call the Apple Tax is in fact the "design" price. The ultra book segment VS the MBA proves it. When the PC market has to come up with a design (as oppose to a bunch of stats in a plastic box) they sell at the same prices has Apple.
fyi if it doesn't handle ATSC it can't be called a TV... so it can't be advertised has a TV and it can't be put in the TV section in stores. imo they are going to put it there unless they want to have another monitor in the PC section of the store.
and if they want to sell them they will handle signal decoding in apps so it can support both IPTV an QAM.
An internet only TV will fail.
An internet only TV closed down into Apple ecosystem is a double fail. If they do that I am so dumping all my AAPL stocks.
This is correct. In the US, virtually every TV set is required to include an integrated ATSC tuner by Federal law. What also seems lost on most posters here is that cable and satellite providers are losing subscribers. This is precipitated by two conditions:
- Tough economic times have motivated viewers to reevaluate the value received for their entertainment dollars spent on pay TV.
- The number of free viewing options available via over-the-air (OTA) multicasting satisfies the television viewing needs of many viewers.
There are today websites dedicated to the disconnect movement. TV antennas, both manufactured and homemade, are popular products and issues for discussion.I will repeat here what I have posted before. The issue with TV is not lack of content. There are cable systems that have more than 3000 numbered channels. Even for viewers who have only OTA television may receive more than 50 subchannels. I have no gotten into things like Blu-ray players, game consoles, and IPTV. The issue with TV is management of the content. Our current content management paradigm is an evolution of a paradigm that was developed at a time when many homes received only three channels. If Apple returns to the TV set business with a family of sets that makes it as easy to manage 50-3000 channels as it used to be to manage 3 channels, then it will be a huge success.
just my two cents.
*i'm betting... (in subject line)
Yes... there are some people who stop paying for cable altogether. The term "cord cutting" was coined to describe that.
It does save one a huge amount of money. Basic cable is enough everry month to cover the cost of seeing a movie in a real theater. Note the screen in the theater is many times larger than any TV I'd be willing to buy.
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.
You would be surprised. An iPad with 3G can go a long way to covering ones communications needs. Infact I'm doing so well with my iPad I could see giving up my iPhone for a cheaply pay as you go phone. It is all about controlling cost while maximizing your communications capacity.
If I need bulk access to the Internet I can always grab the laptop and slip into a library or something. People need to realize there is more to life than the Internet. The fewer dollars I spend on it the more I have for trips, home repairs and tools. Pretty simple really.
no it's not
you can squeeze more than enough pixels into that size
Not sure it is a pixel issue. I think the issue is just size. I think the average consumer purchasing an HDTV is looking for a minimum of 40 or 42 inch. I don't remember where I read that, but I'll repost it if I can find it.
Nobody wants to watch football on a slightly larger than a display sized TV. 37" would be a deal breaker for me unless it folds my laundry.