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).
And Viera isn't all that bad. Panasonic just showcased a 80" 8K resolution plasma, I think they're planning on sticking around a bit.
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).
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).
This is ridiculous. It may apply to you, but you're not every consumer.
1) I bought 2 small TVs last year. One for each kid's bedroom. They're used daily.
2) No. Why would I want to pay so much when I can buy a decent 24" TV for a few hundred bucks?
3) Again, nope. I'm not a fool. I have a 51" in my bedroom and a 51" in the living room. The bedroom TV is where my wife and I watch TV after getting kids in bed
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).
I agree 100%. I have this TV as well and absolutely love it. I have it connected to a DirecTV DVR and Playstation 3. Once you are used to the clarity of the picture and also size of this TV it is hard to imagine going with a smaller and inferior picture from a LCD/LED type set. If Apple decides to make an Apple TV that is actual TV set and not just a box, this Panny sets the bar pretty high. I also doubt Apple would make a 65" model. Regardless what Apple introduces I doubt too many people would buy it if they are satisfied with their current set. I certainly won't be looking for a new one until my current one stops working.
But if I am viewing something like Avengers or Avatar or Life of Pi, there's no other way I'd rather be viewing it. And unless you've really seen it on a large-screen plasma -- perhaps you have -- you can't comment. It's surprisingly good.
You know what? Whatever. They want to build things based on rumors and what people tell them they want, it's their funeral.
Yeah, because don't you just know Jony Ive just LOVES his dangly boxes and Samsung TV setup. Nothing to see here, moving on. (yes that was sarcasm, the man cares about the most minute of details and I'd bet like most folks at Apple, myself included, absolutely hates the current standard of the TV experience out there)
You shouldn't need multiple devices. You shouldn't have to put-up-with any cables, beside a single power cord. You shouldn't need more than one remote (if even you mainly use just one, which in most cases is not true). You shouldn't need to buy, own, configure and set up and/use a universal remote - to attempt to fix the mess in the middle of your living room against the wall. Not that they even do that. You shouldn't need to do any of this.
There should be a product out there from the best hardware and software company on the planet, that product should do it all, that product should exist, and when it does it will slowly but surely begin to sell, making Apple a nice bit of money, but far more importantly, fixing the mess that is TV. People should be able to pop the TV out of the box, enter their Apple ID and be off to the races. Boom!
The writing is on the wall, it's only a matter of time, they're going to make a TV not for rumors, but because that market is ripe for genuine revolution, and not simply another box dangling from your TV.
Sooner I later you'll have to open your eyes to all of this.
The one feature Piper seems to think will be iTV's main feature...
Quote:
but the most important feature will be the ability to use the TV as the main interface for the living room across multiple devices
...is the very thing I think Apple's setting up to destroy. Forever. Just as the iPhone (and other smart phones) replaced and combined multiple devices into one, I think this TV will do the same. It will be a games console, an iPTV (cable) box, a TV, an entertainment system and an app hub, in one sexy and profitable piece of hardware that will sell (in the grand scheme of thing) quite well, I believe.
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.
Well said...I agree if I'm going to put money into "screen size," it will be only one TV and it will be the largest TV I can afford. (I would love it to be an Apple TV). For everything else, I'll go with the iP5, iPad mini, and a MBA 11." If I need a large computer screen to do something...I really don't want to be doing it!
And Viera isn't all that bad. Panasonic just showcased a 80" 8K resolution plasma, I think they're planning on sticking around a bit.
Panasonic is listed in a November 16, 2012 eWeek article as one of ten IT/Technology consumer electronics companies that just don't get today's customers. For years now, all it took was two eyes to see that Panasonic is so yesterday that it makes yesterday look like last year. As for plasma displays, they are heavy, power-hungry, and pressure sensitive. Plasma has its fans, but the days when it was a major player in the display market are long gone.
But, I digress. This whole discussion sounds an awful lot a dumbed-down version of the same discussion following rumors of an Apple television set earlier this year. It is important to go back to basics. What is the problem that an Apple TV set is supposed to solve? So many posters seem glued to the notion that the problem is content delivery. This is simply not the case. In the USA, we have several cable companies including the fiber lines from the two biggest phone companies in the country. These alone, bring up to 1000s of simultaneous content streams into our homes. We have two major satellite providers, plus several smaller ones. Even our broadcast stations provide in excess of 50 simultaneous content streams to homes in many markets. We have streaming content from too many web-based providers to count. Among these are Apple's own iTunes Music Store. We also have offline delivery via Blu-ray, DVD, and video gaming.
Content is not the problem. Content management is the problem. I have no idea what Apple has in mind as its solution to this problem. However, the solution lies in iOS. We already have remote control emulators in the form of iOS apps. Obviously, these apps allow iPhones and iPads to control non-Apple TVs and other devices. By adding two-way communication between an iOS-based TV and an iOS-base remote control/content management device, we create a new world. Every content source can appear on the remote as a thumbnail icon with animated preview. A no-brainer is to build the program guide into the remote.
To gain the maximum leverage from this scheme, new Apple-sponsored protocols must be adopted by manufacturers of video games, Blu-ray players, and STBs. New cabling technologies will probably also be required. [Isn't Thunderbolt here already?] Ideally, I would like to see the TV or the content management device replace cable/satellite STBs and DVRs.
The bottomline is that we need to stop trying to predict yesterday's sunrise.
But if I am viewing something like Avengers or Avatar or Life of Pi, there's no other way I'd rather be viewing it. And unless you've really seen it on a large-screen plasma -- perhaps you have -- you can't comment. It's surprisingly good.
I have seen it... sort of. I haven't sat down and watched a full movie so I am not claiming anything absolute. But from watching movies in the cinema I know that after the initial 'wow', its back to the story. I am not at all against 3d it just seems like an unnecessary thing. IMAX, yes, retina, yes, 3d... not so much. Each to his own and I am sure there will always be a market, but for me the increased realism tends to illuminate the artefacts and by so doing draw attention to technique and technicalities and ultimately get in the way of the story. I also don't like wearing silly glasses.
Well said...I agree if I'm going to put money into "screen size," it will be only one TV and it will be the largest TV I can afford. (I would love it to be an Apple TV). For everything else, I'll go with the iP5, iPad mini, and a MBA 11." If I need a large computer screen to do something...I really don't want to be doing it!
If you work with multiple apps and multiple windows within each app, as well as multiple panels and such, nothing beats a 27" iMac. The ideal combo for me is a large iMac and an iPad (any). If it weren't for the many apps crowding my workspaces I'd be with you except I'd make the MBA 13".
[COLOR=blue]The resolution used for the iPhone 5 was the base on a long debate, Apple hasn't considered useful to propose a standard resolution as its concurrency (720P for example).
The main reason was Apple's refusal to modify the OS interface, so what could be the iPad Mini Retina's resolution :???:[/COLOR]
iPad Mini w/ Retina in Spring (I think more May/June)- I agree- and can't wait to buy.
iPad redesign next year- duh. Of course it will look like the iPhone and mini. The 9.7" iPad looks like a relic next to the amazing design of the 5/mini.
5S- of course.
The move to 16:9 aspect ratios in the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch is something I hope does not happen with the iPad. 16:9 may be fine for video but it is really lacking with almost ever other use. It's as though they want us to read books on legal paper. The 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPads give you more useable space and can be used in both portrait and landscape modes in a reasonable way. Unfortunately almost every tablet has gone 16:9. It's really a step backwards.
It is strange that they don't mention anything about the MacPro on this "predictions" as Tim Cook wrote a letter to users stating that apple is "working on something really great" for the MacPro and that it will be coming on 2013.
Comments
And Viera isn't all that bad. Panasonic just showcased a 80" 8K resolution plasma, I think they're planning on sticking around a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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).
My guess is that 3d will always be a gimmick.
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).
This is ridiculous. It may apply to you, but you're not every consumer.
1) I bought 2 small TVs last year. One for each kid's bedroom. They're used daily.
2) No. Why would I want to pay so much when I can buy a decent 24" TV for a few hundred bucks?
3) Again, nope. I'm not a fool. I have a 51" in my bedroom and a 51" in the living room. The bedroom TV is where my wife and I watch TV after getting kids in bed
4) On this I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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).
I agree 100%. I have this TV as well and absolutely love it. I have it connected to a DirecTV DVR and Playstation 3. Once you are used to the clarity of the picture and also size of this TV it is hard to imagine going with a smaller and inferior picture from a LCD/LED type set. If Apple decides to make an Apple TV that is actual TV set and not just a box, this Panny sets the bar pretty high. I also doubt Apple would make a 65" model. Regardless what Apple introduces I doubt too many people would buy it if they are satisfied with their current set. I certainly won't be looking for a new one until my current one stops working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
My guess is that 3d will always be a gimmick.
For some people, and for some movies, yes.
But if I am viewing something like Avengers or Avatar or Life of Pi, there's no other way I'd rather be viewing it. And unless you've really seen it on a large-screen plasma -- perhaps you have -- you can't comment. It's surprisingly good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You know what? Whatever. They want to build things based on rumors and what people tell them they want, it's their funeral.
Yeah, because don't you just know Jony Ive just LOVES his dangly boxes and Samsung TV setup. Nothing to see here, moving on. (yes that was sarcasm, the man cares about the most minute of details and I'd bet like most folks at Apple, myself included, absolutely hates the current standard of the TV experience out there)
You shouldn't need multiple devices. You shouldn't have to put-up-with any cables, beside a single power cord. You shouldn't need more than one remote (if even you mainly use just one, which in most cases is not true). You shouldn't need to buy, own, configure and set up and/use a universal remote - to attempt to fix the mess in the middle of your living room against the wall. Not that they even do that. You shouldn't need to do any of this.
There should be a product out there from the best hardware and software company on the planet, that product should do it all, that product should exist, and when it does it will slowly but surely begin to sell, making Apple a nice bit of money, but far more importantly, fixing the mess that is TV. People should be able to pop the TV out of the box, enter their Apple ID and be off to the races. Boom!
The writing is on the wall, it's only a matter of time, they're going to make a TV not for rumors, but because that market is ripe for genuine revolution, and not simply another box dangling from your TV.
Sooner I later you'll have to open your eyes to all of this.
The one feature Piper seems to think will be iTV's main feature...
Quote:
but the most important feature will be the ability to use the TV as the main interface for the living room across multiple devices
...is the very thing I think Apple's setting up to destroy. Forever. Just as the iPhone (and other smart phones) replaced and combined multiple devices into one, I think this TV will do the same. It will be a games console, an iPTV (cable) box, a TV, an entertainment system and an app hub, in one sexy and profitable piece of hardware that will sell (in the grand scheme of thing) quite well, I believe.
The 3D where objects fly out at you, yes. The 3D that adds depth (the way we really see) might end up being more than a gimmick.
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.
Well said...I agree if I'm going to put money into "screen size," it will be only one TV and it will be the largest TV I can afford. (I would love it to be an Apple TV). For everything else, I'll go with the iP5, iPad mini, and a MBA 11." If I need a large computer screen to do something...I really don't want to be doing it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And Viera isn't all that bad. Panasonic just showcased a 80" 8K resolution plasma, I think they're planning on sticking around a bit.
Panasonic is listed in a November 16, 2012 eWeek article as one of ten IT/Technology consumer electronics companies that just don't get today's customers. For years now, all it took was two eyes to see that Panasonic is so yesterday that it makes yesterday look like last year. As for plasma displays, they are heavy, power-hungry, and pressure sensitive. Plasma has its fans, but the days when it was a major player in the display market are long gone.
But, I digress. This whole discussion sounds an awful lot a dumbed-down version of the same discussion following rumors of an Apple television set earlier this year. It is important to go back to basics. What is the problem that an Apple TV set is supposed to solve? So many posters seem glued to the notion that the problem is content delivery. This is simply not the case. In the USA, we have several cable companies including the fiber lines from the two biggest phone companies in the country. These alone, bring up to 1000s of simultaneous content streams into our homes. We have two major satellite providers, plus several smaller ones. Even our broadcast stations provide in excess of 50 simultaneous content streams to homes in many markets. We have streaming content from too many web-based providers to count. Among these are Apple's own iTunes Music Store. We also have offline delivery via Blu-ray, DVD, and video gaming.
Content is not the problem. Content management is the problem. I have no idea what Apple has in mind as its solution to this problem. However, the solution lies in iOS. We already have remote control emulators in the form of iOS apps. Obviously, these apps allow iPhones and iPads to control non-Apple TVs and other devices. By adding two-way communication between an iOS-based TV and an iOS-base remote control/content management device, we create a new world. Every content source can appear on the remote as a thumbnail icon with animated preview. A no-brainer is to build the program guide into the remote.
To gain the maximum leverage from this scheme, new Apple-sponsored protocols must be adopted by manufacturers of video games, Blu-ray players, and STBs. New cabling technologies will probably also be required. [Isn't Thunderbolt here already?] Ideally, I would like to see the TV or the content management device replace cable/satellite STBs and DVRs.
The bottomline is that we need to stop trying to predict yesterday's sunrise.
You left out the X-Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
For some people, and for some movies, yes.
But if I am viewing something like Avengers or Avatar or Life of Pi, there's no other way I'd rather be viewing it. And unless you've really seen it on a large-screen plasma -- perhaps you have -- you can't comment. It's surprisingly good.
I have seen it... sort of. I haven't sat down and watched a full movie so I am not claiming anything absolute. But from watching movies in the cinema I know that after the initial 'wow', its back to the story. I am not at all against 3d it just seems like an unnecessary thing. IMAX, yes, retina, yes, 3d... not so much. Each to his own and I am sure there will always be a market, but for me the increased realism tends to illuminate the artefacts and by so doing draw attention to technique and technicalities and ultimately get in the way of the story. I also don't like wearing silly glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Well said...I agree if I'm going to put money into "screen size," it will be only one TV and it will be the largest TV I can afford. (I would love it to be an Apple TV). For everything else, I'll go with the iP5, iPad mini, and a MBA 11." If I need a large computer screen to do something...I really don't want to be doing it!
If you work with multiple apps and multiple windows within each app, as well as multiple panels and such, nothing beats a 27" iMac. The ideal combo for me is a large iMac and an iPad (any). If it weren't for the many apps crowding my workspaces I'd be with you except I'd make the MBA 13".
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
He expects a so-called "iPhone 5S" that would be a "modest upgrade" from the current iPhone 5, with a faster processor, more RAM and a better camera.
But it's not about specs, right?
Re Apple TV set. Implement complete voice control (Siri).
"TV turn on"
"TV what's on tonight?"
"TV change to Channel x"
"TV switch to Blu-ray"
"TV record xxx while I'm out"
"TV turn off"
That's the differentiator. Screw a 55" LCD with an iPod Touch as a remote.
The main reason was Apple's refusal to modify the OS interface, so what could be the iPad Mini Retina's resolution :???:[/COLOR]
I agree but how does one monetize content management?
Hilarious. He actually forgot the launch of the new Mac Pro, the only core product launch that is actually confirmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
iPad Mini w/ Retina in Spring (I think more May/June)- I agree- and can't wait to buy.
iPad redesign next year- duh. Of course it will look like the iPhone and mini. The 9.7" iPad looks like a relic next to the amazing design of the 5/mini.
5S- of course.
The move to 16:9 aspect ratios in the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch is something I hope does not happen with the iPad. 16:9 may be fine for video but it is really lacking with almost ever other use. It's as though they want us to read books on legal paper. The 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPads give you more useable space and can be used in both portrait and landscape modes in a reasonable way. Unfortunately almost every tablet has gone 16:9. It's really a step backwards.
philip
It is strange that they don't mention anything about the MacPro on this "predictions" as Tim Cook wrote a letter to users stating that apple is "working on something really great" for the MacPro and that it will be coming on 2013.