Its call control leaks. Btw the Apple TV DOES NOT look like a big Apple thunderbolt display. Leaks are going to happen so its better to control them and even better, leak things to send the competition off track.
what worries me is Sharp is also suppose to supply ipad3 displays and its not going very well for them, the yield is horrible.
So you work for Apple and apparently in the design group. Which is how you know there is an Apple TV and what it looks like
And apparently you moonlight in quality assurance since you know about the quality of any Sharp iPad displays.
Or not on both counts, so why front you have any actual facts
Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.
Do you use HDMI? It should be as sharp as any other monitor.
Yes, maybe it’s something I am not doing…I’m not a long time Mac user. I’m an iOS convert. That’s another reason I would be interested because I know setup will be easier than what I have now.
Its call control leaks. Btw the Apple TV DOES NOT look like a big Apple thunderbolt display. Leaks are going to happen so its better to control them and even better, leak things to send the competition off track.
what worries me is Sharp is also suppose to supply ipad3 displays and its not going very well for them, the yield is horrible.
I think YOU'VE GOT IT.
I'm not too worried about the quality of the Sharp Displays; #1, FoxConn will be assisting. #2, Apple will be inspecting. #3, MORE money and margins will mean better build quality.
The main reason Sharp's quality went down was because they were chasing the bottom of the barrel where a flat panel sells the cheapest 1040P at 40" regardless of any other factor. Heck -- I shop that way as well but also check for "returns" on the product. So the cheapest with the least returns WINS!
Sharp is getting investment from both FoxConn and Apple -- and Apple will be getting a great deal on the panels because they rescued Sharp. It's a Win/Win. Since nobody else is producing the Apple TV -- Sharp doesn't have to shave $10 by switching from a metal housing to a plastic one.
1. Because Apple can't make money off of physical media or content bought from the Cable Co.
2. Because people have an irrational fear of plugging in cables - it requires decisions, and Apple stuff should "Just Work".
3. Because cables are ugly and connect to devices on which Apple makes no profit.
Because wireless connections would work, and Apple could license third parties to make stuff that obviates cables.
Excuse me Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Zuzz is having one of his frequent episodes of verbal diarrhoea. Please excuse the mess.
We would like to confirm the actual facts:
1. Apple doesn't give a **** about making a profit However, they will, regardless, because they make some kick-ass shit.
2. Purchasing an Apple product, as with any other computer device, is a relatively major decision, hence the reason why it costs a few hundred dollars or more. Intelligent people expect items within this price range to work because of this.
Who can blame them?
3. Wireless/Non-Wireless - Nobody gives a bugger, as long as it 'just works'.
If you didn't understand this article, it's probably because you are an unsophisticated iOS user. Please contact 'I am a Zither Zather Zuzz' on how you can correct this issue.
Its call control leaks. Btw the Apple TV DOES NOT look like a big Apple thunderbolt display. Leaks are going to happen so its better to control them and even better, leak things to send the competition off track.
what worries me is Sharp is also suppose to supply ipad3 displays and its not going very well for them, the yield is horrible.
How do you know the yield is horrible?
Whatever the yield is, they are more or less keeping up with demand, given the lead time and the units available at Apple Stores.
Well playing Devil's advocate ... one could say the mobile phone and tablet industry are the same, all either losing money or scraping by ... except for Apple. Who knows, perhaps they can re invent yet another industry. I have no idea how but if they enter (big if I know) I'd have to assume it would be a reinvention in a way that will make Google and Samsung rush off and copy it.
Well, I think the TV manufacturing biz is very different from mobile phones biz.. Companies like Nokia, Ericsson, Motolora and RIM made killings when their flagship phones were flying high. The TV biz? nope. Samsung is by far the most successful company in TV making biz, and everyone, with no exception, is losing money.
Now, I do wonder if Apple can start a TV business without tripping up on Samsung's patents or looking like one of their TVs.
My prediction is that Samsung is going to end up manufacturing most of Apple TV's (again) because of production problems (or cost overrun) with other supplier.
Panasonic just reported a 10.2 billion dollar loss on their TV business and decline in sales by 40%. Samsung spun off their display unit. Sony is floundering. Sharp isn't doing well either...This is a very low margin business with a race to the bottom. Why would Apple want to get involved? A TV is not a bi-annual gadget.
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing. You're not thinking outside the box, and therefore you believe Apple isn't able to either. They were always mocked, ridiculed, and questioned before entering ANY industry, and we saw how those always turned out. Mp3 players, phones, tablets, etc. Apple has shown that they will not enter an industry unless they have something unique to offer, and can do it in a way that nobody else can. I'm also sure that Apple is aware of all the stats you're spewing, and has thought this over an extremely long time, looking at every possible angle. DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day? They will differentiate themselves in a large way, and even if the product is very low margin, it will have other reasons for existing, ie. for increasing the reach of Apple's ecosystem, creating synergy with all their devices, strengthening the halo effect, etc. There's a ton of room for things to be done differnetly, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing.
Really? A few years ago "tablet" was the second most saturated electronics market on the entire planet, having been around since the 1950s and having been shown to be a zero-profit game?
There's no question Apple could redefine television. An "iTV" could provide an elegant user experience to replace the daunting mess of cluttered remotes and menus that consumers currently face. While customers won't upgrade TVs nearly as often as they do their mobile phones, a TV product will further extend Apple's ecosystem and cement loyalty.
Apple's real challenge is content. Content owners are joined at the hip with the cable industry and seem intent on blocking any newcomers that might threaten their business model. But with overpriced cable TV service offering increasingly poor content choices and intrusive advertising across their hundreds of channels, many people are ready to cut the cord and pay only for the content they want, when they want it. An Apple TV could be just the catalyst for this shift.
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing.
Pot, meet kettle?
Quote:
DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day?
Well as long as I'm still still a slave to the cable box, my home sound system, and blu-ray player that's really all it will be, regardless if I can wave, dance, sing, yell, moan at it. The average person currently sees their TV as a big screen to view everything else, and that's about it.
Quote:
There's a ton of room for things to be done differently, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
I'd genuinely like to HOPE so, someone does need to change the model but I don't see it happening, yet anyway, see above.
The TV space, much like other big appliance cycles in a home, is nothing like the consumer electronics market, aka the sub $1000 point. I'm not sure why that's so hard to comprehend for some people. Everyone's convinced because Apple is building it, it must be a wild success, the right next move and the next big revolution. I can't wait for that Apple Mower then. How's it working out for the cinema display compared to the generics? That's pretty much the next closest comparison at the moment. This is an entirely different corner for Apple. Unless there is something major backing this 'panel', that's a content game changer, and maybe there is, I'm just not seeing the premium taking off like the other launches in the last few years. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, since no facts are known. It doesn't make them idiotic. Just remember the old adage "past performance does not guarantee future results.'
Well playing Devil's advocate ... one could say the mobile phone and tablet industry are the same, all either losing money or scraping by ... except for Apple. Who knows, perhaps they can re invent yet another industry. I have no idea how but if they enter (big if I know) I'd have to assume it would be a reinvention in a way that will make Google and Samsung rush off and copy it.
The difference is that Apple was at the forefront of those markets, yeah there were smartphones but nothing like the iPhone and how many tablets were for sale before the iPad. Before 2007 the likes of Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, etc... were making money and are now for the most part losing money because of Apple. TVs have a purchase cycle of 5-10 years and sales are in decline because of saturation. Another difference between a TV and iDevices is quantity, all i need is one iPhone and one iPad but i need 3 TVs. The user experience of a iPhone/iPad follows me wherever I go, but I'll be forced to one room if i wanna enjoy the user experience of a Apple branded TV set, and no I am not gonna replace all my TVs in one shot, Id rather buy 3 Apple TVs instead.
Whatever the yield is, they are more or less keeping up with demand, given the lead time and the units available at Apple Stores.
that because most of the ipad3 displays are made by Samsung... Apple is trying hard to cut Samsung from its supply line, but apparently they are the only ones able to produce the ipad3 display in large volume. You may think what you want of Samsung, but they know what they are doing when it comes to panels.
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing. You're not thinking outside the box, and therefore you believe Apple isn't able to either. They were always mocked, ridiculed, and questioned before entering ANY industry, and we saw how those always turned out. Mp3 players, phones, tablets, etc. Apple has shown that they will not enter an industry unless they have something unique to offer, and can do it in a way that nobody else can. I'm also sure that Apple is aware of all the stats you're spewing, and has thought this over an extremely long time, looking at every possible angle. DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day? They will differentiate themselves in a large way, and even if the product is very low margin, it will have other reasons for existing, ie. for increasing the reach of Apple's ecosystem, creating synergy with all their devices, strengthening the halo effect, etc. There's a ton of room for things to be done differnetly, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
Do you really believe Apple will sell something at a low margin and try to make it up someplace else? They havent done that yet and i highly doubt they'll start now. They can achieve the same thing with the Apple TV, actually even more so.
Panasonic just reported a 10.2 billion dollar loss on their TV business and decline in sales by 40%. Samsung spun off their display unit. Sony is floundering. Sharp isn't doing well either...This is a very low margin business with a race to the bottom. Why would Apple want to get involved? A TV is not a bi-annual gadget.
Apple will need to revamp the TV business model indeed. That is exactly what they are trying to do. Technicly Apple could release a smartTV right now, but the revamp of the business model is whats stalling them.
Comments
So you work for Apple and apparently in the design group. Which is how you know there is an Apple TV and what it looks like
And apparently you moonlight in quality assurance since you know about the quality of any Sharp iPad displays.
Or not on both counts, so why front you have any actual facts
Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Do you use HDMI? It should be as sharp as any other monitor.
Yes, maybe it’s something I am not doing…I’m not a long time Mac user. I’m an iOS convert. That’s another reason I would be interested because I know setup will be easier than what I have now.
This is what my prediction of what Apple's iTV will be, especially with regards to video gaming: http://mithunonthe.net/2012/04/03/state-of-gaming-itv-apple-television
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
…it won't be as thick as an iMac or an Apple Cinema display… It won't have AV inputs…
Of course it will. Which is part of why it's a completely worthless and idiotic idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithunOnTheNet
This is what my prediction of what Apple's iTV will be, especially with regards to video gaming: http://mithunonthe.net/2012/04/03/state-of-gaming-itv-apple-television
What a horrible design and idea. That's my objective response to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
Why do you figure it won't have AV inputs?
Because Apple can't make money off of physical media or content bought from the Cable Co.
Because people have an irrational fear of plugging in cables - it requires decisions, and Apple stuff should "Just Work".
Because cables are ugly and connect to devices on which Apple makes no profit.
Because wireless connections would work, and Apple could license third parties to make stuff that obviates cables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Its call control leaks. Btw the Apple TV DOES NOT look like a big Apple thunderbolt display. Leaks are going to happen so its better to control them and even better, leak things to send the competition off track.
what worries me is Sharp is also suppose to supply ipad3 displays and its not going very well for them, the yield is horrible.
I think YOU'VE GOT IT.
I'm not too worried about the quality of the Sharp Displays; #1, FoxConn will be assisting. #2, Apple will be inspecting. #3, MORE money and margins will mean better build quality.
The main reason Sharp's quality went down was because they were chasing the bottom of the barrel where a flat panel sells the cheapest 1040P at 40" regardless of any other factor. Heck -- I shop that way as well but also check for "returns" on the product. So the cheapest with the least returns WINS!
Sharp is getting investment from both FoxConn and Apple -- and Apple will be getting a great deal on the panels because they rescued Sharp. It's a Win/Win. Since nobody else is producing the Apple TV -- Sharp doesn't have to shave $10 by switching from a metal housing to a plastic one.
Excuse me Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Zuzz is having one of his frequent episodes of verbal diarrhoea. Please excuse the mess.
We would like to confirm the actual facts:
1. Apple doesn't give a **** about making a profit However, they will, regardless, because they make some kick-ass shit.
2. Purchasing an Apple product, as with any other computer device, is a relatively major decision, hence the reason why it costs a few hundred dollars or more. Intelligent people expect items within this price range to work because of this.
Who can blame them?
3. Wireless/Non-Wireless - Nobody gives a bugger, as long as it 'just works'.
If you didn't understand this article, it's probably because you are an unsophisticated iOS user. Please contact 'I am a Zither Zather Zuzz' on how you can correct this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Its call control leaks. Btw the Apple TV DOES NOT look like a big Apple thunderbolt display. Leaks are going to happen so its better to control them and even better, leak things to send the competition off track.
what worries me is Sharp is also suppose to supply ipad3 displays and its not going very well for them, the yield is horrible.
How do you know the yield is horrible?
Whatever the yield is, they are more or less keeping up with demand, given the lead time and the units available at Apple Stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
1. Apple doesn't give a **** about making a profit
You're kidding, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Well playing Devil's advocate ... one could say the mobile phone and tablet industry are the same, all either losing money or scraping by ... except for Apple. Who knows, perhaps they can re invent yet another industry. I have no idea how but if they enter (big if I know) I'd have to assume it would be a reinvention in a way that will make Google and Samsung rush off and copy it.
Well, I think the TV manufacturing biz is very different from mobile phones biz.. Companies like Nokia, Ericsson, Motolora and RIM made killings when their flagship phones were flying high. The TV biz? nope. Samsung is by far the most successful company in TV making biz, and everyone, with no exception, is losing money.
Now, I do wonder if Apple can start a TV business without tripping up on Samsung's patents or looking like one of their TVs.
My prediction is that Samsung is going to end up manufacturing most of Apple TV's (again) because of production problems (or cost overrun) with other supplier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Panasonic just reported a 10.2 billion dollar loss on their TV business and decline in sales by 40%. Samsung spun off their display unit. Sony is floundering. Sharp isn't doing well either...This is a very low margin business with a race to the bottom. Why would Apple want to get involved? A TV is not a bi-annual gadget.
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing. You're not thinking outside the box, and therefore you believe Apple isn't able to either. They were always mocked, ridiculed, and questioned before entering ANY industry, and we saw how those always turned out. Mp3 players, phones, tablets, etc. Apple has shown that they will not enter an industry unless they have something unique to offer, and can do it in a way that nobody else can. I'm also sure that Apple is aware of all the stats you're spewing, and has thought this over an extremely long time, looking at every possible angle. DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day? They will differentiate themselves in a large way, and even if the product is very low margin, it will have other reasons for existing, ie. for increasing the reach of Apple's ecosystem, creating synergy with all their devices, strengthening the halo effect, etc. There's a ton of room for things to be done differnetly, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing.
Really? A few years ago "tablet" was the second most saturated electronics market on the entire planet, having been around since the 1950s and having been shown to be a zero-profit game?
There's no question Apple could redefine television. An "iTV" could provide an elegant user experience to replace the daunting mess of cluttered remotes and menus that consumers currently face. While customers won't upgrade TVs nearly as often as they do their mobile phones, a TV product will further extend Apple's ecosystem and cement loyalty.
Apple's real challenge is content. Content owners are joined at the hip with the cable industry and seem intent on blocking any newcomers that might threaten their business model. But with overpriced cable TV service offering increasingly poor content choices and intrusive advertising across their hundreds of channels, many people are ready to cut the cord and pay only for the content they want, when they want it. An Apple TV could be just the catalyst for this shift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing.
Pot, meet kettle?
Quote:
DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day?
Well as long as I'm still still a slave to the cable box, my home sound system, and blu-ray player that's really all it will be, regardless if I can wave, dance, sing, yell, moan at it. The average person currently sees their TV as a big screen to view everything else, and that's about it.
Quote:
There's a ton of room for things to be done differently, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
I'd genuinely like to HOPE so, someone does need to change the model but I don't see it happening, yet anyway, see above.
The TV space, much like other big appliance cycles in a home, is nothing like the consumer electronics market, aka the sub $1000 point. I'm not sure why that's so hard to comprehend for some people. Everyone's convinced because Apple is building it, it must be a wild success, the right next move and the next big revolution. I can't wait for that Apple Mower then. How's it working out for the cinema display compared to the generics? That's pretty much the next closest comparison at the moment. This is an entirely different corner for Apple. Unless there is something major backing this 'panel', that's a content game changer, and maybe there is, I'm just not seeing the premium taking off like the other launches in the last few years. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, since no facts are known. It doesn't make them idiotic. Just remember the old adage "past performance does not guarantee future results.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
So you work for Apple and apparently in the design group. Which is how you know there is an Apple TV and what it looks like
And apparently you moonlight in quality assurance since you know about the quality of any Sharp iPad displays.
Or not on both counts, so why front you have any actual facts
The Sharp ipad3 display yield is public information, the itv look is another thing, but believe what you want.
The difference is that Apple was at the forefront of those markets, yeah there were smartphones but nothing like the iPhone and how many tablets were for sale before the iPad. Before 2007 the likes of Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, etc... were making money and are now for the most part losing money because of Apple. TVs have a purchase cycle of 5-10 years and sales are in decline because of saturation. Another difference between a TV and iDevices is quantity, all i need is one iPhone and one iPad but i need 3 TVs. The user experience of a iPhone/iPad follows me wherever I go, but I'll be forced to one room if i wanna enjoy the user experience of a Apple branded TV set, and no I am not gonna replace all my TVs in one shot, Id rather buy 3 Apple TVs instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
How do you know the yield is horrible?
Whatever the yield is, they are more or less keeping up with demand, given the lead time and the units available at Apple Stores.
that because most of the ipad3 displays are made by Samsung... Apple is trying hard to cut Samsung from its supply line, but apparently they are the only ones able to produce the ipad3 display in large volume. You may think what you want of Samsung, but they know what they are doing when it comes to panels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing. You're not thinking outside the box, and therefore you believe Apple isn't able to either. They were always mocked, ridiculed, and questioned before entering ANY industry, and we saw how those always turned out. Mp3 players, phones, tablets, etc. Apple has shown that they will not enter an industry unless they have something unique to offer, and can do it in a way that nobody else can. I'm also sure that Apple is aware of all the stats you're spewing, and has thought this over an extremely long time, looking at every possible angle. DO you honestly think they're gonna slap their logo on a flat panel and call it a day? They will differentiate themselves in a large way, and even if the product is very low margin, it will have other reasons for existing, ie. for increasing the reach of Apple's ecosystem, creating synergy with all their devices, strengthening the halo effect, etc. There's a ton of room for things to be done differnetly, and better in the TV space, and Apple is the only one I can think of that could forseeably move things forward in a significant way.
Do you really believe Apple will sell something at a low margin and try to make it up someplace else? They havent done that yet and i highly doubt they'll start now. They can achieve the same thing with the Apple TV, actually even more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Panasonic just reported a 10.2 billion dollar loss on their TV business and decline in sales by 40%. Samsung spun off their display unit. Sony is floundering. Sharp isn't doing well either...This is a very low margin business with a race to the bottom. Why would Apple want to get involved? A TV is not a bi-annual gadget.
Apple will need to revamp the TV business model indeed. That is exactly what they are trying to do. Technicly Apple could release a smartTV right now, but the revamp of the business model is whats stalling them.