Ethernet or WiFi between the network and the box.
Why would it be anything else?
One potential answer is HDBaseT.
i never understood the need for apple to make an television because it really goes against everything that has made the company successful. majority, if not all, of people don't upgrade their TVs every year or so like they do their phones, computers, etc. an apple television would just be far too unwieldy for apple.
a set top box makes more sense for apple.
No, that's why Apple needs an aggregator like Comcast. Steve-o-Vision is the same shows delivered in an intuitive interface.
As a very long time TiVo fan I heartily agree!
I want stellar image quality and not a whole lot of builtin (pricey and wasted) gewgaws beyond that.
TVs are trending bigger and the margins are getting thinner. The super premium price for the new 4K monitors will probably be short lived. I don't think there is enough margin in TVs for Apple to jump into the game, even for the 4K units. I was a little disappointed when they didn't release their own 4K display to match color of the new Mac Pro. They didn't even make a matching keyboard. TVs are expensive to ship too. No margins, no Apple TV.
jungmark wrote: »
Apple is smart. It didn't jump on the netbook band wagon or this smart TV set dumbness.
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
I guess you haven't seen the new MacPro or iMac? Apple has no issues with cables and external storage devices. Have you seen the AppleTV, it has cables. Even cable boxes today don't require "a million" cables, they require three. Power, cable in, and HDMI.
jungmark wrote: »
TVs are a low margin business. They aren't replaced often enough to be a profitable product line.
kibitzer wrote: »
An integrated Apple TV never made a lick of sense three years ago, let alone now.
zorinlynx wrote: »
I am a geek. I tend to replace my gadgets often. Yet my TVs are from 2007 and 2009. Why? Once you have a quality full HD display with HDMI in there's little reason to replace it until it dies or you want a bigger one. And I got the size I needed back then and haven't felt a need to upgrade.
mj web wrote: »
Apple is best positioned to reshape the mishmash of channels into a cohesive structure where viewers can select shows by genre as opposed to channel or time. But before Apple can release "Steve-o-vision" it must partner with a "Comcast-like" entity who already has the networks sewn up. Apple doesn't need to reinvent the wheel but it does need access to a full spectrum of networks and shows
applesince86 wrote: »
I can't pretend to predict the future, but I can envision one where "cable TV" will be a quaint, historical memory, where all "channels" instead flow through the Internet connection. Today, the cable installer brings a Motorola or Cisco "set top box" into your home. Imagine if that instead were an Apple TV box, and your channels came through that. Call it HomePlay (just as Apple can drive your future vehicle's dash display via CarPlay).
Evolution tends to happen in sudden spurts rather than steadily. I can imagine "cable TV" going away in a seismic shift to Internet-based programming. All those immense Apple data centers distributed across the country are gaining equally immense netcast capability, which represents potentially very attractive value-provided facilities for all the content providers. A scenario can be envisioned where both cable- and content-providers win with this arrangement as a new frontier is opened up. Keep in mind that cable companies absolutely hate having to deal with content providers, who continually drive prices up and make cable companies appear to be the perennial bad guys. The overall situation is just so ripe for this change.
pmz wrote: »
Apple moving to an integrated TV display would be a disaster.......repeat.....disaster.
ireland wrote: »
Or smartphones. Oh, wait.
Despite all your up-votes your comparison is not good. Net books were cheap laptops that benefited no one. Apple doesn't make cheap junk. The only reason Apple can't sell a full size TV is because, in Steve Jobs own words, there was no viable go-to-market strategy. This is still true. If Apple could get rights to all the world's TV Shows to bundle in an attractive cable-busting monthly package, a subsidised iTV product would have happened already. The fat lard-asses who own all the content wouldn't give Apple the deal they wanted because Apple would dominate the game. The content holders are still pulling the strings. If you think people wouldn't pay Apple $50 per month for access to stream all their TV shows along with a down-payment of $499 for the set on a 2-year contract think again.
And what about those who don't want a new TV and would rather buy a little box instead you say? Apple would continue to sell the box separately with the TV package. Only making the TV seem like a more attractive deal, given it would be a mere $499 cost for the true Apple living room experience.
One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote.
Universal remote you say? They suck donkey-dick.
ireland wrote: »
I disagree with your thinking. Phones were a low margin business before Apple. They aren't replaced often enough? Couldn't disagree more. All the more reason why making the best one, which I think Apple could do, allows them to control people's living room experience for a longer duration of time. And given 10 years if they had all the shows people wanted and could sell folks an amazing TV at an attractive subsidised price they'd probably control over 20% of the western world TV market, while doing what Apple is best at: providing a great experience while making money.
mj web wrote: »
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);line-height:22px;">No, t</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">hat's why Apple needs an aggregator like Comcast. Steve-o-Vision is the same shows delivered in an intuitive interface.</span>
Article Title infers causation, while the correlation is iffy at best.
The headline implies; YOU infer.
That said, you're quite right. Such a rumor would suppress TV sales, not drive them. Also, it's not terribly surprising that after a major change in an appliance industry (the adaptation of HD) there would be a surge and then a drop of sales back to normal levels. Neither the growth nor the decline has much to do with any Apple rumors.
FWIW, I always thought it was dumb for Apple to try to make an entire TV anyway. I doubt they ever seriously considered it. Why not just make the AppleTV box that would plug into any TV? Getting people to buy an Apple phone when they replace their phones every year or two already is one thing. Getting them to replace a $1,000+ purchase people keep 5-10 years is quite another.
Just like an iPhone which you can get for $0-$200, it is the monthly service that gets expensive. Cox charges $47.99 / mo. for their slowest Internet (5 mbs) which is not even guaranteed and at times is too slow to properly stream content without stalling, which really is a buzz kill when watching an exciting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet prices start going up as more people bail on the TV packages in lieu of streaming.
Plus, there is also the likelihood of data caps or throttling in the future. Cutting the cord is a myth.
At one of my houses I have no cable whatsoever, just OTA HD (excellent image quality BTW, way better than cable) and for Internet I have a cell data plan with a WiFi hotspot, which is ok for a vacation home but rather limited in options.
Dose of reality for all those people who think all OTA broadcast TV is simply going to be replaced by internet steaming on-demand.