Why have one TV with game changing services when it can be done cheaper and on multiple TVs?
Huh? What ever services revamp there will be will apply across the board, whether a full tv set is introduced or not. I know there are very good reasons for simply updating the Apple TV box, but my argument is that I am sure there is a strong temptation for Apple to control the whole user experience, not just that of the little aTV. Were Apple to bring out a complete TV the user experience would undoubtedly be a drastically better one. If a cable box had to be connected you'd be back to same old same old whenever you view through the cable box, but the push would be towards programming over IP from Apple.
Huh? What ever services revamp there will be will apply across the board, whether a full tv set is introduced or not. I know there are very good reasons for simply updating the Apple TV box, but my argument is that I am sure there is a strong temptation for Apple to control the whole user experience, not just that of the little aTV. Were Apple to bring out a complete TV the user experience would undoubtedly be a drastically better one. If a cable box had to be connected you'd be back to same old same old whenever you view through the cable box, but the push would be towards programming over IP from Apple.
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
Agreed...Apple will have the best cardboard box. though!
Yep, I saw a thin LG with an extremely thin aluminum frame, Really rather elegant. So I take your point about not being much room for impact there.
I also agree about showing the iMac/monitor with ATV icons on the screen as the mockup for Apple's TV. It would look better with the above mentioned LG with ATV icons and an Apple logo photoshopped in.
I can't imagine what an iTV would bring to the table that I would want, and almost certainly nothing in that price range. Compare the state of the technology to where we were before the introduction of the iPod and iTunes systems - in those cases there was a vast need for a tech improvement, and it could be done in a price range compatible with consumer expectations. No so here. The only thing that is ripe for improvement is the ability to get content on an attractive pricing model. iTunes went through this getting album only songs individually.
Apple has never gotten involved in a tech race to the bottom of the price list. I just saw a 46" HDTV for sale at like $380. A dongle for TVs that makes the interface more intuitive or provides content on a new pricing model? Sure. That's AppleTV, a (beloved) hobby. Hardware to compete with others that make displays? Even beautiful displays? Don't see it happening.
Just don't see a tech model for an iTV that would be desirable. Makes no sense to me.
I understand why Apple has the Apple TV- and I love my ATV. The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.
It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...
That I did not know. No wonder why Roku does so well.
Yep. I love my Apple TV but they're behind on content thus far because developers haven't had access. Roku has done quite well on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
That made me lol.
Which is why I agree Apple's TV aspirations do not involve a panel. It's a set top box with DVR functionality and based on iOS. It just has to be. Couple that with unbundled channel options and Apple will have truly "cracked the code" as Steve said he had.
I understand why Apple has the Apple TV- and I love my ATV.
The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.
It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...
Depends on bundled vs unbundled channels. If unbundled, I'd be willing to pay $299 to $399 for it, because I'll be able to cut my Direct TV bill in half per month anyway.
And super thin and elegant TVs don't exist now? Why just the living room? Why not the bedroom? Most people already own multiple TVs. A Apple TV with a app store could be on every TV in the house not just the living room.
Because:
1) No one buys small TVs anymore
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
Agree. I think iPad has, to a large extent, replaced the bedroom TV. And all other non-living-room TVs too, now that I think about it. The Remote app lets you watch your Apple TV content, and third-party apps let you watch live TV, DVR-ed content, or pay-per-view (e.g. the DirecTV app and DirecTV Everywhere.) In a way, iPad is the new "small TV."
I think Apple is taking exactly the opposite approach to internet TV than that of Google. Google TV crams internet complexity onto your living room TV. Bad idea. The living room TV is a shared resource, and personal use like tweets, texts, email, bookmarked web pages, etc. can only cause contention for that shared resource. If someone is tweeting their dessert using the living room TV as a screen, then nobody else will be able to use the biggest screen in the house. Terrible use of a high-value communal resource. Conversely, when the family is watching Wall-E, nobody will be allowed to check their messages or tweet their dessert or look up DeWalt 14-volt drill prices on Amazon.
On the other hand, Apple is keeping the living room TV experience relatively simple with the current Apple TV. The communal viewing of movies and TV shows stays more or less the same, with on-demand content from iTunes on Apple TV. But iTunes + Remote and DirecTV Everywhere are also shifting TV consumption, in an easy and natural way, to smaller screens like iPad. The exact opposite of the centralized, high-value TV resource like Google TV + living room big-screen TV.
VCRs and DVRs taught us to expect time-shifted TV content. Now iPad is adding space-shifting as well. You can watch your live or pre-recorded content anywhere now, on iPad and other pads. No need to buy a dedicated TV for the bedroom etc. And the best part of the whole deal for Apple is that decentralizing the TV resource means that everyone in the family can have a separate TV experience. Everyone can have an iPad. There's only one living room, only one living room TV. But there could be many iPads in the household. And more iPads means more revenue for Apple.
I understand why Apple has the Apple TV- and I love my ATV.
The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.
It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...
Price will stay $99 entry. And I think the iPad mini proved Apple is done with anything smaller than 16gb except at the nano.
You're trying to compare pricing structures between devices that are apples and oranges. You're forgetting the ATV lacks the two most costly components of an iOS device: display and battery. Seriously, when you take those two things out of the iPod Touch and what's left? A wafer-thin piece of equipment. Other than the I/Os that Apple TV could have been the size of a credit card.
Agree. I think iPad has, to a large extent, replaced the bedroom TV. And all other non-living-room TVs too, now that I think about it. The Remote app lets you watch your Apple TV content, and third-party apps let you watch live TV, DVR-ed content, or pay-per-view (e.g. the DirecTV app and DirecTV Everywhere.) In a way, iPad is the new "small TV."
I think Apple is taking exactly the opposite approach to internet TV than that of Google. Google TV crams internet complexity onto your living room TV. Bad idea. The living room TV is a shared resource, and personal use like tweets, texts, email, bookmarked web pages, etc. can only cause contention for that shared resource. If someone is tweeting their dessert using the living room TV as a screen, then nobody else will be able to use the biggest screen in the house. Terrible use of a high-value communal resource. Conversely, when the family is watching Wall-E, nobody will be allowed to check their messages or tweet their dessert or look up DeWalt 14-volt drill prices on Amazon.
On the other hand, Apple is keeping the living room TV experience relatively simple with the current Apple TV. The communal viewing of movies and TV shows stays more or less the same, with on-demand content from iTunes on Apple TV. But iTunes + Remote and DirecTV Everywhere are also shifting TV consumption, in an easy and natural way, to smaller screens like iPad. The exact opposite of the centralized, high-value TV resource like Google TV + living room big-screen TV.
VCRs and DVRs taught us to expect time-shifted TV content. Now iPad is adding space-shifting as well. You can watch your live or pre-recorded content anywhere now, on iPad and other pads. No need to buy a dedicated TV for the bedroom etc. And the best part of the whole deal for Apple is that decentralizing the TV resource means that everyone in the family can have a separate TV experience. Everyone can have an iPad. There's only one living room, only one living room TV. But there could be many iPads in the household. And more iPads means more revenue for Apple.
I like where you are heading with this but I think it a ways off yet. Most people I know still have a TV in their bedroom and while not the most used device in the house, it's definitely used.
1) No one buys small TVs anymore
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
I just bought a Toshiba 24" for the bedroom last year. It gets turned on when we are home sick, or if it snows bad and we need to quickly see if leaving bed that morning is necessary. You must live in a dream land, I think just about everyone I know has a TV in the bedroom, they may not get used regularly but they are present.
About this debate between a display or a STB...
Personally, I see it as a STB. The experts have already shown enough proof the TV market is really not a big enough market for Apple to really make sweeping changes in. A full monitor is pointless if you still have to plug-in components (I.e. cable, HT audio, BD, etc...) and for Apple to spend R&D on integrating all those technologies into a device that would make a marginal impact on the TV market would be a waste of time and resources.
Where Apple will tackle this market it in control. My crappy Motorola STB cable remote already has the capability to control all my HT devices. If Apple could do this, they wouldn't need a full Apple 42"-55" TV. If they could just reinvent the ATV home screen to become more customized to your existing components...and have the ability to fully utilize their functionalities, then you'd have something. And at $99, you'd have a totally new experience controlled entirely from the ATV. You need to calibrate your monitor, ATV does it. You want to play a BD? There an app for that. Watch live or recorded TV? Another home screen App. The Interface is what will make the new ATV popular. It will make the TV experience easier.
What is the future I'd Apps for ATV? I don't know but I'm thinking it will be as paid subscriptions. You want NBC? Their App could be free for basic over-air programming, but cost you $X.99/mo. per extra channel, like app add-ons. Frankly, I'm not sure why this idea hasn't already been initiated. I guess that might be closer to the equivalent of Hulu+. However, what really pisses me off about Hulu is that current episodes have a time window of viewing before they become "expired" and don't return until who-knows-when, prolly after the BD comes out for the season. That's the one drawback to Hulu, and that the entire catalog of each network is not available on Hulu. They have BBC America, but not Doctor Who, or Top Gear or any other top show they have. Hulu is nice for $8/mo. But has drawbacks.
Still not a 1:1 to traditional cable. Apple needs to rival cable in some way to be viable at all in this market. They can't do it on hardware alone, or just in software and/or services. And hardware would be pointless, since price will drive sales 99.99% of the time in this market. so why not tackle the software/UI and services? And sell millions more $99 STBs instead? You'd get a lot more users on a cheap box with great services and UI than an expensive panel that may look and function great, but has no user base because its out of most user's price point.
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
I use the UI of the cable provider, but increasingly we use the Apple TV UI, inc Netflix. Apple's desired model regardless of what you view it on, or where the programming is coming from is definitely that they provide the UI. When connected by hdmi I use the UI of my cable provider but I have to use the television set volume controller. Apple's way would be no cable box, no dvd/pvr and gaming through iPad / iPod / iPhone using Airplay. More and more cable companies offer programming over IP and if this could be accessed through an app such as Netflix it would be a win win for everybody. DVD/PVR will become redundant in a programming over IP world. Obviously Apple would have to provide inputs for all those who have not or will not live entirely in 'Apple's world'.
As far as the Television set and your hypothetical problem goes, the answer would be the same as applies to every other smart tv out there.
I am not saying this will happen but it surprises me how virtually everybody here only see the problems and not the possibilities.
1) No one buys small TVs anymore
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.
And LCDs are cheaper than plasma, anyway. Apple wouldn't use plasma.
I have the Panasonic VT 65" plasma (with stunning 3D).
Once you get used to modern plasma, you can't go back to LCD (or what passes off for LED).
If Apple does not offer at least 65", plasma, and 3D, I'd stick with an @TV driving my Panasonic. (Although, the one slight hitch might be that after its recent, gargantuan loss, Panasonic may not be around all that much longer as a maker of TVs).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Why have one TV with game changing services when it can be done cheaper and on multiple TVs?
Huh? What ever services revamp there will be will apply across the board, whether a full tv set is introduced or not. I know there are very good reasons for simply updating the Apple TV box, but my argument is that I am sure there is a strong temptation for Apple to control the whole user experience, not just that of the little aTV. Were Apple to bring out a complete TV the user experience would undoubtedly be a drastically better one. If a cable box had to be connected you'd be back to same old same old whenever you view through the cable box, but the push would be towards programming over IP from Apple.
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
Agreed...Apple will have the best cardboard box. though!
Yep, I saw a thin LG with an extremely thin aluminum frame, Really rather elegant. So I take your point about not being much room for impact there.
I also agree about showing the iMac/monitor with ATV icons on the screen as the mockup for Apple's TV. It would look better with the above mentioned LG with ATV icons and an Apple logo photoshopped in.
I can't imagine what an iTV would bring to the table that I would want, and almost certainly nothing in that price range. Compare the state of the technology to where we were before the introduction of the iPod and iTunes systems - in those cases there was a vast need for a tech improvement, and it could be done in a price range compatible with consumer expectations. No so here. The only thing that is ripe for improvement is the ability to get content on an attractive pricing model. iTunes went through this getting album only songs individually.
Apple has never gotten involved in a tech race to the bottom of the price list. I just saw a 46" HDTV for sale at like $380. A dongle for TVs that makes the interface more intuitive or provides content on a new pricing model? Sure. That's AppleTV, a (beloved) hobby. Hardware to compete with others that make displays? Even beautiful displays? Don't see it happening.
Just don't see a tech model for an iTV that would be desirable. Makes no sense to me.
I'm thinking Apple quality, not Sears or Costco
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P55VT50
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P65VT50
Next year's VT50 might catch up with where Pioneer left off and less than half the Pioneer price.
Edit: and i wouldn't buy LCD tech for a HT display.
The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.
It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That I did not know. No wonder why Roku does so well.
Yep. I love my Apple TV but they're behind on content thus far because developers haven't had access. Roku has done quite well on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
That made me lol.
Which is why I agree Apple's TV aspirations do not involve a panel. It's a set top box with DVR functionality and based on iOS. It just has to be. Couple that with unbundled channel options and Apple will have truly "cracked the code" as Steve said he had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
I understand why Apple has the Apple TV- and I love my ATV.
The margins are small on hardware I'm sure- this is a simple intro to get iTunes easier and promote other product with functionality.
It's 8gb. Introduce apps, give us 16gb, and charge more. More margins on hardware to offset some of the apps that will canabalize itunes, but most of the Same other benefits. But at what price- $149, $199? Because I'm telling you now-- I find it highly, highly unlikely we get 16gb (which you'd need), apps, an A6 single core, and it stay at $99...
Depends on bundled vs unbundled channels. If unbundled, I'd be willing to pay $299 to $399 for it, because I'll be able to cut my Direct TV bill in half per month anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And super thin and elegant TVs don't exist now? Why just the living room? Why not the bedroom? Most people already own multiple TVs. A Apple TV with a app store could be on every TV in the house not just the living room.
Because:
1) No one buys small TVs anymore
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
...Munster expects Apple to hold an event around March of next year to launch a new radio service to compete with Pandora.
2013 - streaming radio service ("Pingdora?")
2014 - streaming television service ("The Apple Channel")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Because:
1) No one buys small TVs anymore
2) Even if they wanted such a thing, they'd probably use a computer instead of buying a TV
3) Only fools watch TV in bed (it's actually a very small section of the market)
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
Agree. I think iPad has, to a large extent, replaced the bedroom TV. And all other non-living-room TVs too, now that I think about it. The Remote app lets you watch your Apple TV content, and third-party apps let you watch live TV, DVR-ed content, or pay-per-view (e.g. the DirecTV app and DirecTV Everywhere.) In a way, iPad is the new "small TV."
I think Apple is taking exactly the opposite approach to internet TV than that of Google. Google TV crams internet complexity onto your living room TV. Bad idea. The living room TV is a shared resource, and personal use like tweets, texts, email, bookmarked web pages, etc. can only cause contention for that shared resource. If someone is tweeting their dessert using the living room TV as a screen, then nobody else will be able to use the biggest screen in the house. Terrible use of a high-value communal resource. Conversely, when the family is watching Wall-E, nobody will be allowed to check their messages or tweet their dessert or look up DeWalt 14-volt drill prices on Amazon.
On the other hand, Apple is keeping the living room TV experience relatively simple with the current Apple TV. The communal viewing of movies and TV shows stays more or less the same, with on-demand content from iTunes on Apple TV. But iTunes + Remote and DirecTV Everywhere are also shifting TV consumption, in an easy and natural way, to smaller screens like iPad. The exact opposite of the centralized, high-value TV resource like Google TV + living room big-screen TV.
VCRs and DVRs taught us to expect time-shifted TV content. Now iPad is adding space-shifting as well. You can watch your live or pre-recorded content anywhere now, on iPad and other pads. No need to buy a dedicated TV for the bedroom etc. And the best part of the whole deal for Apple is that decentralizing the TV resource means that everyone in the family can have a separate TV experience. Everyone can have an iPad. There's only one living room, only one living room TV. But there could be many iPads in the household. And more iPads means more revenue for Apple.
You're trying to compare pricing structures between devices that are apples and oranges. You're forgetting the ATV lacks the two most costly components of an iOS device: display and battery. Seriously, when you take those two things out of the iPod Touch and what's left? A wafer-thin piece of equipment. Other than the I/Os that Apple TV could have been the size of a credit card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Agree. I think iPad has, to a large extent, replaced the bedroom TV. And all other non-living-room TVs too, now that I think about it. The Remote app lets you watch your Apple TV content, and third-party apps let you watch live TV, DVR-ed content, or pay-per-view (e.g. the DirecTV app and DirecTV Everywhere.) In a way, iPad is the new "small TV."
I think Apple is taking exactly the opposite approach to internet TV than that of Google. Google TV crams internet complexity onto your living room TV. Bad idea. The living room TV is a shared resource, and personal use like tweets, texts, email, bookmarked web pages, etc. can only cause contention for that shared resource. If someone is tweeting their dessert using the living room TV as a screen, then nobody else will be able to use the biggest screen in the house. Terrible use of a high-value communal resource. Conversely, when the family is watching Wall-E, nobody will be allowed to check their messages or tweet their dessert or look up DeWalt 14-volt drill prices on Amazon.
On the other hand, Apple is keeping the living room TV experience relatively simple with the current Apple TV. The communal viewing of movies and TV shows stays more or less the same, with on-demand content from iTunes on Apple TV. But iTunes + Remote and DirecTV Everywhere are also shifting TV consumption, in an easy and natural way, to smaller screens like iPad. The exact opposite of the centralized, high-value TV resource like Google TV + living room big-screen TV.
VCRs and DVRs taught us to expect time-shifted TV content. Now iPad is adding space-shifting as well. You can watch your live or pre-recorded content anywhere now, on iPad and other pads. No need to buy a dedicated TV for the bedroom etc. And the best part of the whole deal for Apple is that decentralizing the TV resource means that everyone in the family can have a separate TV experience. Everyone can have an iPad. There's only one living room, only one living room TV. But there could be many iPads in the household. And more iPads means more revenue for Apple.
I like where you are heading with this but I think it a ways off yet. Most people I know still have a TV in their bedroom and while not the most used device in the house, it's definitely used.
About this debate between a display or a STB...
Personally, I see it as a STB. The experts have already shown enough proof the TV market is really not a big enough market for Apple to really make sweeping changes in. A full monitor is pointless if you still have to plug-in components (I.e. cable, HT audio, BD, etc...) and for Apple to spend R&D on integrating all those technologies into a device that would make a marginal impact on the TV market would be a waste of time and resources.
Where Apple will tackle this market it in control. My crappy Motorola STB cable remote already has the capability to control all my HT devices. If Apple could do this, they wouldn't need a full Apple 42"-55" TV. If they could just reinvent the ATV home screen to become more customized to your existing components...and have the ability to fully utilize their functionalities, then you'd have something. And at $99, you'd have a totally new experience controlled entirely from the ATV. You need to calibrate your monitor, ATV does it. You want to play a BD? There an app for that. Watch live or recorded TV? Another home screen App. The Interface is what will make the new ATV popular. It will make the TV experience easier.
What is the future I'd Apps for ATV? I don't know but I'm thinking it will be as paid subscriptions. You want NBC? Their App could be free for basic over-air programming, but cost you $X.99/mo. per extra channel, like app add-ons. Frankly, I'm not sure why this idea hasn't already been initiated. I guess that might be closer to the equivalent of Hulu+. However, what really pisses me off about Hulu is that current episodes have a time window of viewing before they become "expired" and don't return until who-knows-when, prolly after the BD comes out for the season. That's the one drawback to Hulu, and that the entire catalog of each network is not available on Hulu. They have BBC America, but not Doctor Who, or Top Gear or any other top show they have. Hulu is nice for $8/mo. But has drawbacks.
Still not a 1:1 to traditional cable. Apple needs to rival cable in some way to be viable at all in this market. They can't do it on hardware alone, or just in software and/or services. And hardware would be pointless, since price will drive sales 99.99% of the time in this market. so why not tackle the software/UI and services? And sell millions more $99 STBs instead? You'd get a lot more users on a cheap box with great services and UI than an expensive panel that may look and function great, but has no user base because its out of most user's price point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
How many people actually use the UI of a TV? One just sets up the inputs and that's pretty much it. We use the UI of out set top box, of our gaming console, of our DVD/BR player, and others. Unless Apple has a solution to get rid of all those in one fell swoop a TV will not sell well. And what's going to happen when there's a problem? Are people going to line up with their 50" TVs to use the genius bar?
I use the UI of the cable provider, but increasingly we use the Apple TV UI, inc Netflix. Apple's desired model regardless of what you view it on, or where the programming is coming from is definitely that they provide the UI. When connected by hdmi I use the UI of my cable provider but I have to use the television set volume controller. Apple's way would be no cable box, no dvd/pvr and gaming through iPad / iPod / iPhone using Airplay. More and more cable companies offer programming over IP and if this could be accessed through an app such as Netflix it would be a win win for everybody. DVD/PVR will become redundant in a programming over IP world. Obviously Apple would have to provide inputs for all those who have not or will not live entirely in 'Apple's world'.
As far as the Television set and your hypothetical problem goes, the answer would be the same as applies to every other smart tv out there.
I am not saying this will happen but it surprises me how virtually everybody here only see the problems and not the possibilities.
1)Wrong
2)Wrong
3)Wrong
4)Agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4) It's not just about "thin and elegant" it's about "simple" (which almost no TVs are at the moment).
Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Don't laugh, it wouldn't be the first time I heard rumors of a Tesla partnership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Hey, I'd actually be fine with that.
Actually, Tesla uses Android, since Google was an early investor in the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And LCDs are cheaper than plasma, anyway. Apple wouldn't use plasma.
I have the Panasonic VT 65" plasma (with stunning 3D).
Once you get used to modern plasma, you can't go back to LCD (or what passes off for LED).
If Apple does not offer at least 65", plasma, and 3D, I'd stick with an @TV driving my Panasonic. (Although, the one slight hitch might be that after its recent, gargantuan loss, Panasonic may not be around all that much longer as a maker of TVs).