Sure they do! Just look at the $999 iPad... I mean $499... that no one can compete with. Also look at the iPhone being sold at the same subsidized price as other smartphones. These are Apple's two most profitable arms. You can also look at their Macs where they are cheaper than comparable PCs.
As Jobs has repeatedly stated they will enter a market if they feel they have a viable strategy. Slapping an Apple TV and logo onto an HDTV isn't not good enough. There needs to be a reason why one would buy an Apple HDTV that does nothing more than an Apple TV connected to your current, already paid for, HDTV that will have size and feature options no one vendor can offer, especially not Apple.
They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.
The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.
Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity. An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung's very best TVs, it would beat them handily.
If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.
That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.
They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.
The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.
Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity.
An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung, it would beat them handily. If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.
That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.
A connected TV UI is certainly a place where Apple could leave others in the dust. For all their chest thumping, Samsung makes horrible software. They got lucky with Android, since it gave them a legitimate software platform to build on. Left to their own devices, their stuff is insultingly bad. I mean, I've seen a lot of complaints about the latest Apple TV UI, but compared to the shit that Samsung sticks on their TVs it looks like a work of sublime genius.
So if Samsung wants to make a badass connected TV, they're at the mercy of Google, and given Google TV it's not clear that Google can shake off its über-nerd tendencies long enough to make anything that isn't so hilariously over-engineered that it makes watching TV feel like work.
Apple, on the other hand and should they elect to make a TV, will obviously make it super simple and fun to use. At the moment, the "smart TV" landscape looks a bit like the the smart phone market before Apple entered it, with the very notable caveat that there wasn't any analog to the cable TV/broadcast content issue.
I don't really like a huge TV in a room unless it is a home theater media room, which I do not have. 42" is fine for me. Reading the article, it mentions 32" MONITOR. I know some high end home theaters call the display a monitor since they have external receivers, however they seldom if ever have a resolution beyond 1080i. If Apple created a 32" monitor with 3,840 by 2,160 resolution it would be over kill for HD TV. That is why I think the only logical use for such a monitor would be for high end computing and not primarily TV.
What might be pretty cool is revisiting the old days of PCs with a TV tuner card where we watched TV in an application window. If in the modern rendition, it was an Apple TV inside the monitor and an app to view TV in an iPad size 1080 window on the desktop, all the while working with other windows like a normal computer. Or if you just wanted to dedicate it to TV viewing you could expand the window to full screen. Nice but pretty much the same thing as iTunes on OS X is right now.
Of course for that to work in the Apple ecosystem we would need a mid range desktop computer other than an iMac.
If Apple is going to enter the living room TV market I doubt they will bother with Retina resolution since all of the iTunes content will be 1080 for the foreseeable future.
One of my concerns is by the time Apple releases it's Television most of the features will have already been implemented in technology or TV's that are on shelf presently.
Apple has no reason to make a 32 inch display with Retina resolution. It is not integral to any of their other products, perhaps Aperture, although, many high end professional photographers have moved past that at this point to solutions such as Phase One or Digital Express.
I don't think I've known anyone who adopted Aperture on a serious level. It's such a clunky piece of software for dealing with larger projects.
I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. Apple will make an evolutionary step with whatever they have been planning.
Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.
One of my concerns is by the time Apple releases it's Television most of the features will have already been implemented in technology or TV's that are on shelf presently.
But probably implemented badly. Like simple voice command before Siri, like touch-screens before iPhone, like tablets before iPad... need I go on?
Others just don't seem to have the chops to do these things well enough in a complete package.
The LG ad with the girl standing in front of her TV telling it things to do is brilliant!!! /s
Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.
That's only because they can offer more with a computer that is worth paying for. What they can offer that others don't have in a TV unit isn't immediately obvious.
This article is stating that Apple only considered investing in Sharp with some of the $100b burning a hole in their pockets but ultimately decided against it. They have therefore made no such investment that would make anyone think they planned to make a TV.
Next we'll get a photo of Tim Cook using a remote as further evidence that he's testing out the TV experience. This rumour has been swirling around for a while now:
Not a single iota of evidence has appeared to support the iPad Mini nor the Apple TV Set.
Any display investment Apple makes is more likely to be for Cinema displays and iMacs. Now that the iPad is 2048 x 1536, they should aim for an iMac display where the vertical resolution is higher than 2048 (min 3640 x 2048). The obvious next step is 4K (QFHD = 3840x2160) = 2x1920x1080.
Margins on TVs are only pitiful because manufacturers compete on price. Apple doesn't do that.
Everything they make has roughly the same (large) margin with few exceptions. If this means that it's more expensive than the rest, then that's just the way it is. If this more expensive product doesn't sell, then they stop making it.
I don't see anything stopping Apple from making a TV. At the very least, the same margin argument could be made about every product they have come out with and every product they have been wildly successful with in the last ten or twenty years. I remember in particular the same argument being made about their computers in the 90's and the same argument being made about the iPhone before it came out also.
Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.
Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?
Kind of surprising there would be so many computer geeks in the room and none of you lot know anything about TV and what's already showing at events like CES.
I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:
1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.
2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.
I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:
1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.
2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.
Yawn. Seriously. Wake me up when Super Hi-Vision is available outside Japan. 4k isn't our final solution; it is.
I'm just saying that the TV's get bigger every year, that 42" is the new "average" and that 50-80 inches is the new "big TV." I didn't mention (but it's a relevant fact), that pretty much all new TV technology debuts on the latest, greatest, and largest TV's.
Therefore & ipso facto etc. ....
It seems to me that to "debut" this astounding new product by bringing it to market on a tiny little TV, that's barely larger than today's average computer monitor, would indeed be "a disaster."
They would be laughed at. Hard.
Yes if you want to sell it in the U.S. first and the rest of the world later. Runaway real estate prices outside North America means leaving the nest is not a viable option for 20 somethings anymore. And old TV bought within 5 years ago may have to soldier on as far as 20, just like their CRT ancestors.
No offense sir but, baby boomers with the kind of income to keep 40+ big TV sales going are dying faster than we GenX can replace you. In 10 years time your kids would be left with half the paycheck and half the money in the bank, most of them anyway, while your generation are six feet under.
Here's the problem Apple may have to think ahead. Parents are dying and their children you'll need to sell to do not have money like their parents do when they walk into the store 5 or 10 years later.
Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.
Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?
Would AppleTV look rather like a Big Mac; a computer you can watch TV on, the same way you could call iPhone a Small Mac?
He said Apple "originally debated" whether it should invest in the LCD market, but ultimately decided against it.
Better to pit several suppliers against each other. Get them into a bidding war to lower your component contract costs.
Also helps avoid having a single point of failure in case there are production problems. At least one of the contractors will
get it right, putting pressure on the other(s) to get their act together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The initial run of IGZO screens will come in three sizes: 7 inches for tablets, 10 inches with 300 pixels per inch for high-definition notebook PCs, and 32 inches at a resolution of 3,840 by 2,160 pixels for LCD monitors.
10 inch high-definition notebook PCs? Really? Netbooks 2.0?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
As for the possibility of Apple further investing in its supply chain, White suggested that the company could try to exert influence over management at Foxconn by taking a position on their board. This would send a signal that initiatives at it and other partners are being closely monitored.
And said board member could also warn Apple if/when Foxconn does work for other companies.
As for TV I also think it will be more than just an AppleTV with an LCD. At the very least, baseline, it will be the one device to replace your TV, set top box, media player, DVD player. LCD TV + Hulu / Netflix is pretty close already so it's not a huge jump from Apple TV + LCD. But there will be "one more thing".
I've read rumors (possibly here) that the Apple television device will eventually expand into a home automation system.
This would give Apple demographic information that Google, Amazon, and Facebook would *kill* for.
Because it could learn your patterns, habits, and lifestyle. What better way to understand your customers?
Think about it. Google knows what you search for, your email, your documents, and a little about what you buy (and a tiny bit of social info.)
Amazon knows a lot about what you buy online and not a whole lot more. Facebook knows all of your friends.
Apple could expand their TV system beyond just serving up entertainment. It could do the basic home automation tasks like
turning lights on and off via Siri voice command, automatically randomizing lights going on and off when you're on vacation,
turning on the heat as you leave you office and approach your home, etc.
But, with a bit of wild extrapolation, I could see an Apple home automation system that handles your alarm system, reminds you to
pay bills, opens/closes your garage door by voice command, plays back your home voice messages, takes
voice reminders from family members just like the Siri app on iOS, integrates with iCloud across all your Apple devices, etc.
It would add your home to the Apple ecosystem.
If Apple doesn't do it sooner, someone else will do it later.
Then again, maybe the public isn't ready for all that yet...
The problem with home automation systems is the buy-in price. It's not just a piece of software running on a cheap CPU, it's all the programable interfaces to all the outlets, HVAC and media systems in your home.
Until they start building smart-homes as a matter of course, with intelligent control on each outlet, port and system and a plugin architecture that's interoperable with some standard, home automation will remain a relatively affluent person's niche market.
Current LCD projectors use a max of 1080p resolution in a 3" panel. That works out about 600 dpi or so. With all the work apple has done producing retina iPhone and iPad, is it possible that they have worked with Sharp to create a panel with 2000 dpi resolution for 4K HD?
A 4K panel coupled with real time pixel interpolation to up convert from HD to 4K might actually be the cheapest solution for ultra large screen TVs. I am talking 100 inches plus at retina quality! Apple could easily make these TVs within 1-2000 USD and sell it for its usual 40% margins.
The technology itself is available. Apple (or maybe it's partners) managed to create the iPad screen at the outer limits of today's technology. Just applying the exact same changes to existing LCD projector panels would probably be enough to hit 2000 dpi panels. Even if that is not possible, newer technology is already available that allows for 2000 dpi resolutions.
For instance the CCD in a high end camera Easily hits 8000 dpi. Even consumer grade scanners easily hit 4800 dpi. A 2000 dpi 4K panel is not so difficult as it looks. It might be tough on a large screen, but with just a 3-4" panel, it is easily possible.
Apple to take a larger stake in Sharp. The fact that a chinese manufacturer Foxcontakes an 11% stake within a Japanese manufacturer has to be looked at from a paradiagm History tells us NO WAY the Chinese do not take Japanese partners and really dislike or should I say HATE the Japanese! Apple has pulled Foxcons strings to initiate the first leg of this deal. I believe that the stake in sharp will increase to at least 22% by years end. Lets not forget the Apple Samsung relationship - Samsung is Apples #1 competitor, #1 manufacturer and # 1 pirater of Apple technology! Samsung is also being sued by Apple for infringing upon multiple patents. APPLE WANTS TO GET OU OF BED WITH SAMSUNG SO BAD AND SHARP IS THE ANSWER. The Apple/Focxcon/ sharp relationship comes at a pivotal time for all these companies especially Sharp - The company has declared recent losses exceeding 4 billion dollars and the soon to be announced partnership for Apple I -TV to be manufactured by Sharp/Foxcon will be the knight in Shinning Armor for Sharp................
I-TV is coming very soon look out Samsung your about to lose tremendous market share in the Television bizzz!
Comments
Sure they do! Just look at the $999 iPad... I mean $499... that no one can compete with. Also look at the iPhone being sold at the same subsidized price as other smartphones. These are Apple's two most profitable arms. You can also look at their Macs where they are cheaper than comparable PCs.
As Jobs has repeatedly stated they will enter a market if they feel they have a viable strategy. Slapping an Apple TV and logo onto an HDTV isn't not good enough. There needs to be a reason why one would buy an Apple HDTV that does nothing more than an Apple TV connected to your current, already paid for, HDTV that will have size and feature options no one vendor can offer, especially not Apple.
They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.
The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.
Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity. An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung's very best TVs, it would beat them handily.
If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.
That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.
They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.
The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.
Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity.
An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung, it would beat them handily. If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.
That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.
A connected TV UI is certainly a place where Apple could leave others in the dust. For all their chest thumping, Samsung makes horrible software. They got lucky with Android, since it gave them a legitimate software platform to build on. Left to their own devices, their stuff is insultingly bad. I mean, I've seen a lot of complaints about the latest Apple TV UI, but compared to the shit that Samsung sticks on their TVs it looks like a work of sublime genius.
So if Samsung wants to make a badass connected TV, they're at the mercy of Google, and given Google TV it's not clear that Google can shake off its über-nerd tendencies long enough to make anything that isn't so hilariously over-engineered that it makes watching TV feel like work.
Apple, on the other hand and should they elect to make a TV, will obviously make it super simple and fun to use. At the moment, the "smart TV" landscape looks a bit like the the smart phone market before Apple entered it, with the very notable caveat that there wasn't any analog to the cable TV/broadcast content issue.
I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".
I don't really like a huge TV in a room unless it is a home theater media room, which I do not have. 42" is fine for me. Reading the article, it mentions 32" MONITOR. I know some high end home theaters call the display a monitor since they have external receivers, however they seldom if ever have a resolution beyond 1080i. If Apple created a 32" monitor with 3,840 by 2,160 resolution it would be over kill for HD TV. That is why I think the only logical use for such a monitor would be for high end computing and not primarily TV.
What might be pretty cool is revisiting the old days of PCs with a TV tuner card where we watched TV in an application window. If in the modern rendition, it was an Apple TV inside the monitor and an app to view TV in an iPad size 1080 window on the desktop, all the while working with other windows like a normal computer. Or if you just wanted to dedicate it to TV viewing you could expand the window to full screen. Nice but pretty much the same thing as iTunes on OS X is right now.
Of course for that to work in the Apple ecosystem we would need a mid range desktop computer other than an iMac.
If Apple is going to enter the living room TV market I doubt they will bother with Retina resolution since all of the iTunes content will be 1080 for the foreseeable future.
Apple has no reason to make a 32 inch display with Retina resolution. It is not integral to any of their other products, perhaps Aperture, although, many high end professional photographers have moved past that at this point to solutions such as Phase One or Digital Express.
I don't think I've known anyone who adopted Aperture on a serious level. It's such a clunky piece of software for dealing with larger projects.
I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. Apple will make an evolutionary step with whatever they have been planning.
Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.
One of my concerns is by the time Apple releases it's Television most of the features will have already been implemented in technology or TV's that are on shelf presently.
But probably implemented badly. Like simple voice command before Siri, like touch-screens before iPhone, like tablets before iPad... need I go on?
Others just don't seem to have the chops to do these things well enough in a complete package.
The LG ad with the girl standing in front of her TV telling it things to do is brilliant!!! /s
Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.
That's only because they can offer more with a computer that is worth paying for. What they can offer that others don't have in a TV unit isn't immediately obvious.
This article is stating that Apple only considered investing in Sharp with some of the $100b burning a hole in their pockets but ultimately decided against it. They have therefore made no such investment that would make anyone think they planned to make a TV.
Next we'll get a photo of Tim Cook using a remote as further evidence that he's testing out the TV experience. This rumour has been swirling around for a while now:
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/20/...v-set-by-2011/
Not a single iota of evidence has appeared to support the iPad Mini nor the Apple TV Set.
Any display investment Apple makes is more likely to be for Cinema displays and iMacs. Now that the iPad is 2048 x 1536, they should aim for an iMac display where the vertical resolution is higher than 2048 (min 3640 x 2048). The obvious next step is 4K (QFHD = 3840x2160) = 2x1920x1080.
Margins on TVs are only pitiful because manufacturers compete on price. Apple doesn't do that.
Everything they make has roughly the same (large) margin with few exceptions. If this means that it's more expensive than the rest, then that's just the way it is. If this more expensive product doesn't sell, then they stop making it.
I don't see anything stopping Apple from making a TV. At the very least, the same margin argument could be made about every product they have come out with and every product they have been wildly successful with in the last ten or twenty years. I remember in particular the same argument being made about their computers in the 90's and the same argument being made about the iPhone before it came out also.
Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.
Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?
I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:
1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.
2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.
I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:
1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.
2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.
Yawn. Seriously. Wake me up when Super Hi-Vision is available outside Japan. 4k isn't our final solution; it is.
I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".
I'm just saying that the TV's get bigger every year, that 42" is the new "average" and that 50-80 inches is the new "big TV." I didn't mention (but it's a relevant fact), that pretty much all new TV technology debuts on the latest, greatest, and largest TV's.
Therefore & ipso facto etc. ....
It seems to me that to "debut" this astounding new product by bringing it to market on a tiny little TV, that's barely larger than today's average computer monitor, would indeed be "a disaster."
They would be laughed at. Hard.
Yes if you want to sell it in the U.S. first and the rest of the world later. Runaway real estate prices outside North America means leaving the nest is not a viable option for 20 somethings anymore. And old TV bought within 5 years ago may have to soldier on as far as 20, just like their CRT ancestors.
No offense sir but, baby boomers with the kind of income to keep 40+ big TV sales going are dying faster than we GenX can replace you. In 10 years time your kids would be left with half the paycheck and half the money in the bank, most of them anyway, while your generation are six feet under.
Here's the problem Apple may have to think ahead. Parents are dying and their children you'll need to sell to do not have money like their parents do when they walk into the store 5 or 10 years later.
Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.
Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?
Would AppleTV look rather like a Big Mac; a computer you can watch TV on, the same way you could call iPhone a Small Mac?
He said Apple "originally debated" whether it should invest in the LCD market, but ultimately decided against it.
Better to pit several suppliers against each other. Get them into a bidding war to lower your component contract costs.
Also helps avoid having a single point of failure in case there are production problems. At least one of the contractors will
get it right, putting pressure on the other(s) to get their act together.
The initial run of IGZO screens will come in three sizes: 7 inches for tablets, 10 inches with 300 pixels per inch for high-definition notebook PCs, and 32 inches at a resolution of 3,840 by 2,160 pixels for LCD monitors.
10 inch high-definition notebook PCs? Really? Netbooks 2.0?
As for the possibility of Apple further investing in its supply chain, White suggested that the company could try to exert influence over management at Foxconn by taking a position on their board. This would send a signal that initiatives at it and other partners are being closely monitored.
And said board member could also warn Apple if/when Foxconn does work for other companies.
All your IGZO are belong to us. (???)
As for TV I also think it will be more than just an AppleTV with an LCD. At the very least, baseline, it will be the one device to replace your TV, set top box, media player, DVD player. LCD TV + Hulu / Netflix is pretty close already so it's not a huge jump from Apple TV + LCD. But there will be "one more thing".
I've read rumors (possibly here) that the Apple television device will eventually expand into a home automation system.
This would give Apple demographic information that Google, Amazon, and Facebook would *kill* for.
Because it could learn your patterns, habits, and lifestyle. What better way to understand your customers?
Think about it. Google knows what you search for, your email, your documents, and a little about what you buy (and a tiny bit of social info.)
Amazon knows a lot about what you buy online and not a whole lot more. Facebook knows all of your friends.
Apple could expand their TV system beyond just serving up entertainment. It could do the basic home automation tasks like
turning lights on and off via Siri voice command, automatically randomizing lights going on and off when you're on vacation,
turning on the heat as you leave you office and approach your home, etc.
But, with a bit of wild extrapolation, I could see an Apple home automation system that handles your alarm system, reminds you to
pay bills, opens/closes your garage door by voice command, plays back your home voice messages, takes
voice reminders from family members just like the Siri app on iOS, integrates with iCloud across all your Apple devices, etc.
It would add your home to the Apple ecosystem.
If Apple doesn't do it sooner, someone else will do it later.
Then again, maybe the public isn't ready for all that yet...
Until they start building smart-homes as a matter of course, with intelligent control on each outlet, port and system and a plugin architecture that's interoperable with some standard, home automation will remain a relatively affluent person's niche market.
Current LCD projectors use a max of 1080p resolution in a 3" panel. That works out about 600 dpi or so. With all the work apple has done producing retina iPhone and iPad, is it possible that they have worked with Sharp to create a panel with 2000 dpi resolution for 4K HD?
A 4K panel coupled with real time pixel interpolation to up convert from HD to 4K might actually be the cheapest solution for ultra large screen TVs. I am talking 100 inches plus at retina quality! Apple could easily make these TVs within 1-2000 USD and sell it for its usual 40% margins.
The technology itself is available. Apple (or maybe it's partners) managed to create the iPad screen at the outer limits of today's technology. Just applying the exact same changes to existing LCD projector panels would probably be enough to hit 2000 dpi panels. Even if that is not possible, newer technology is already available that allows for 2000 dpi resolutions.
For instance the CCD in a high end camera Easily hits 8000 dpi. Even consumer grade scanners easily hit 4800 dpi. A 2000 dpi 4K panel is not so difficult as it looks. It might be tough on a large screen, but with just a 3-4" panel, it is easily possible.
Could the new Apple HDTV be a projector??
Not unless it has no fans, is Super Hi-Vision, and you never have to change the backlight bulb with a $200 replacement.
Apple to take a larger stake in Sharp. The fact that a chinese manufacturer Foxcontakes an 11% stake within a Japanese manufacturer has to be looked at from a paradiagm History tells us NO WAY the Chinese do not take Japanese partners and really dislike or should I say HATE the Japanese! Apple has pulled Foxcons strings to initiate the first leg of this deal. I believe that the stake in sharp will increase to at least 22% by years end. Lets not forget the Apple Samsung relationship - Samsung is Apples #1 competitor, #1 manufacturer and # 1 pirater of Apple technology! Samsung is also being sued by Apple for infringing upon multiple patents. APPLE WANTS TO GET OU OF BED WITH SAMSUNG SO BAD AND SHARP IS THE ANSWER. The Apple/Focxcon/ sharp relationship comes at a pivotal time for all these companies especially Sharp - The company has declared recent losses exceeding 4 billion dollars and the soon to be announced partnership for Apple I -TV to be manufactured by Sharp/Foxcon will be the knight in Shinning Armor for Sharp................
I-TV is coming very soon look out Samsung your about to lose tremendous market share in the Television bizzz!