I think it is genius. I would buy something like that in a jiffy before I did an Apple HD screen with built-in iTV: the LG model costs $1899, compared to the (ridiculously overpriced) $1999 for just a 30-inch LCD monitor form Apple!
Apple is getting (late) into a crowded and easily contestable market where prices and margins are plummeting.
IIllogical for Apple for the reasons I originally mentioned above. Your mention of the "plummeting margins", though I know nothing of this, also goes with my original statement about this being an illogical move for Apple.
Despite my excessive desire for integrated devices, the one thing I don't want integrated with my TV is a DVR. I want that to be part of my computer so I can easily change or upgrade the drives as needed from one location.
PS: I wonder how Apple's LCD quality compared to that of the LG model. I was rewatching some MWSF keynotes this past weekend--kinda like how kids watch those Xmas claymation movies every year--and I noticed that the first LCD Cinema Display from Apple was 15" and cost $3,000. Things sure have changed in 6 years.
1) I bet you've been watching analog (and digital) SDTV for many, many years just fine. iTS video is quite a bit better than SDTV. Besides, the Apple Media Extender will not be forced to allow ONLY iTS content to be streamed.
2) Depends on the video quality (Mb/sec), the type of wireless single (802.11a/b/g/n/other), and it's priority level (real time A/V to have to be first).
3) As mentioned, that has nothing to do with the display. What file format and quality level is it set to?
4) I disagree (... X gets the square ). Apple is merely expanding the functionality the Mac and iPod. Plus, if the iTV also works with Windows, then it may also be part of the halo effect that is bringing in more Mac users. Dell, Gateway, and HP aren't selling a whole integrated experience; nor can they, as they have to rely on another for the integration to happen. It's like the Wonder Twins: The one can't form water if they other isn't there to be the bucket (I've got idea where their pet monkey comes in, but I'm sure it's important).
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
Er...HDTV sucks? Yes, some broadcasters do starve the bit rate a bit but in comparison to SDTV its still better.
Quote:
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
Draft-N yes. G sometimes. 720p most likely because of costs for Apple on iTunes.
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
Neither do I, My keyboard is still sticky from soilling Coke on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
I hope they change it too, but there are still too many people not using HDTVs to make it viable, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
I'm saying it's possible. If it's 1080p @60frames/sec, then no, but 720p over a dedicated wireless connection should work, especially with pre-n. I currently watch DVDs over 802.11g, rarely with any issues. DVDs need around 10Mb/sec to stream. While H.264 at DVD quality needs less than that if it's decompressed on the remotely machine, and quite a bit more of it's decompressed on the originating machine. I have looked for exact answers for these rates but can't find anything solid to quote, unfortunately.
Also, there are several companies making dedicated devices for streaming Uncompressed data streams over dedicated, proprietary wireless networks with a 1Gb/sec transfer rate. Hopefully all will be revealed tomorrow.
To anyone who believes that Apple will release a HDTV display complete with a tuner, here's a question for you:
which tuner?
Not a bad point but likely for the US market so perhaps ATSC tuner with HDMI in which 90% of folks would have ended up using anyway. From whence are you getting HD programming without a provider supplied box? Via cable card? Yah...welcome to Hassleville. OTA? Mkay...yah there are OTA users of HD. Probably not enough that don't have a HD DVR to worry much about...heck, I'd drop the ATSC tuner as well.
DVR capability is not in the cards for iTV IMHO and dependent on some DVR capability interacting with iTunes.
To anyone who believes that Apple will release a HDTV display complete with a tuner, here's a question for you:
which tuner?
Apple designs and manufactures for an international market. More than half of its revenue comes from outside of the US. (But most of its bloggers/geeks/rumorists come from the US...)
Americans use ATSC but most of the world does not. Europe in particular, is a huge investor in DVB and Apple would have to specifically cater to this market. And what sort of tuner? Cable, terrestrial, satellite?
I think the odds are low that Apple would cater with distinct hardware for different countries -- it's not what Apple likes to do (apart from obvious distinctions between SKUs).
Same thing goes for any DVR-like functionality in the iTV. DVRs require country or region-specific tooling and software and systems (like broadcasting guides), some of which may not actually exist.
I don't think Apple does much manufacturing anymore, they design hardware and write software for user control over that hardware. I think that there are very few companies that actually make TV's today, a lot less than sell them. Apple could do what all the other "Brands" do and offload the manufacturing of the TV's to the companies that do that to Apple's design specifications and using Apple's user interface software. The only problem that they would have in supporting the other standards is a bit of hardware/software design and integration (probably not much more of an investment to support 2 standards than 1) and managing/maintaining a stock for each standard for the countries that you are selling them in.
A bigger problem would be OTA/Cable/Satelite options. Since you would want the same user experience from each, and offer the possibility for a consumer to have more than one or switch from one to the other, you might be forced to offer all 3 offer all 2 as consumer upgradable "cards" that could be purchased and swapped out as needed. Both of these options would add cost to the products, but without them you loose control over the user experience when using the TV as a TV and force the consumer to use the cable/satelite box.
Somebody tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Samsung manufacture the displays for Apple? Apple couldn't hope to undercut all the other players in the HDTV market with that additional layer of cost...
Not a bad point but likely for the US market so perhaps ATSC tuner with HDMI in which 90% of folks would have ended up using anyway. From whence are you getting HD programming without a provider supplied box? Via cable card?
DVB-T. Used by millions of people around the world.
Designing a display that can only be used in ATSC markets (HDMI or no HDMI) wouldn't be typical Apple marketing. In fact, it would be plain dumb. Unlike much of the American IT industry, Apple do tend to think internationally. (This is not a slur against Americans per se, each region is much the same -- thinking parochically that their devices/systems/regimes are the only ones that matter. Apple is different in that it realizes that the US market alone is a minority market and that much of the growth is distinctly outside of the US.)
As for manufacturing, well obviously Apple doesn't make all components themselves, but they do have to _have_ them manufactured and Apple doesn't typically like products that need to be engineered for specific regions. Let alone have features (online TV guides, frinstance) that may be enabled in one region but not available in another.
I see little value in an Apple branded HDTV. There's not much that Apple can "value add" to this market, as they're heavily reliant on commodity manufacturing here. It's not like they can suddenly design, prototype and build their own range of 100cm LCDs or plasmas that would be even remotely price-competitive with an LG. Apple do indeed price themselves over the market, aiming squarely at affluent young people, but there's a huge chasm between paying an extra $100 on an mp3 player because it provides chic cred, and paying an extra grand or two for an Apple badged plasma.
Check out Engdget. It looks like UWB (ultra-wide band) wireless devices are big this year at CES. For those not in the know, UWB has the ability, or so I've read, to stream 1080p wirelessly. I'm not saying that Apple will use this new technology, as they already said they are using 802.11.
I still don't see how this translates to Apple entering the high-end home display market, but... whatevva. I'm still perfectly willing to be surprised on this one.
No matter what they do, some of us will be surprised.
Note that you just state the wide screen hi-defs a big sellers. The original quote is talking 'big screen' market. They aren't mutually inclusive. The sub-$1000 20-30" wide screens are extremely popular. But I don't know who'd call those 'Big-screen'.
Of course, for a company that espoused years ago about "the year of HD", you'd think they would've had ONE monitor that was HDTV compatible (i.e. HDMI port, or component video port, or something that would allow you to view HD content).
Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. They, and I, were talking about screens of 42" and above. That qualifies as big screen.
These days, when one talks about wide screen it can pretty much mean large size. There are 32", and 37" sizes, but basing a discussion on those would be pointless.
Hate to break it to you, but 640x480 aint exactly great. Again, Americans may be used to 480 but many other parts of the world have had higher resolutions as standard for a looong time.
Since we're talking about "big screens", I'll point out that first and foremost, iTunes videos are compressed for hand-held devices. They don't scale up particularly wonderfully to real large screen displays such as projectors, where artefecating, color banding, edge enhancement, blocking and so on show up frequently.
Resolution in SD isn't that important. The higher resolution in europe is offset by the lower quality of the other parts of the equation. The lower scan rates, for example, result in many motion artifacts that are not nearly as noticable in NTSC. Which is not just used in the US, by the way. The higher resolution adds further to those artifacts. There are other problems as well. So don't gloat!
Not on all of them. Only if the upscaling done internally is poor, and doesn't account for the scaling effects on the noise.
Some HDTV's scale beautifully, and SD looks fine.
No no...he said it right and I read it wrong...SD on HDTV sucks. Well...LARGE HDTVs anyway. I won't go as far to say that SD cable on 100" screen is "unwatchable" but it is pretty bad. You can't do much with an already bit starved SD digital cable feed even with a good scaler. Nicely scaled pixellated mess is still pixellated mess blown up to huge proportions.
DVB-T. Used by millions of people around the world.
Market penetration for non-UK users is still pretty piss poor if I remember right. Australia is under 20%. UK around maybe 40% but only because Sky and cable must carry free channels. Anywhere dominated by sat and cable won't see a lot of DVB-T traction. Nor are you locked out...you attach your DVB-T STB to your Apple HDTV via HDMI...another specification valid for Europe for HD.
In any case Apple will be going for a IPTV strategy via iTunes. EPGs etc will be as world wide as iTunes. Which is somewhat spotty...especially for video.
Quote:
Apple do indeed price themselves over the market, aiming squarely at affluent young people, but there's a huge chasm between paying an extra $100 on an mp3 player because it provides chic cred, and paying an extra grand or two for an Apple badged plasma.
Eh...I suspect the price delta will be a few hundred dollars if such a beast exists. Enough to cover the iTV and branding. As a value added its probably worth it (i.e. wireless iTunes integration into your TV).
Comments
LG has just introduced precisely such a product (and with a 42-inch screen, to boot). See, e.g.,:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1134702961875
I think it is genius. I would buy something like that in a jiffy before I did an Apple HD screen with built-in iTV: the LG model costs $1899, compared to the (ridiculously overpriced) $1999 for just a 30-inch LCD monitor form Apple!
Apple is getting (late) into a crowded and easily contestable market where prices and margins are plummeting.
IIllogical for Apple for the reasons I originally mentioned above. Your mention of the "plummeting margins", though I know nothing of this, also goes with my original statement about this being an illogical move for Apple.
Despite my excessive desire for integrated devices, the one thing I don't want integrated with my TV is a DVR. I want that to be part of my computer so I can easily change or upgrade the drives as needed from one location.
PS: I wonder how Apple's LCD quality compared to that of the LG model. I was rewatching some MWSF keynotes this past weekend--kinda like how kids watch those Xmas claymation movies every year--and I noticed that the first LCD Cinema Display from Apple was 15" and cost $3,000. Things sure have changed in 6 years.
1) I bet you've been watching analog (and digital) SDTV for many, many years just fine. iTS video is quite a bit better than SDTV. Besides, the Apple Media Extender will not be forced to allow ONLY iTS content to be streamed.
2) Depends on the video quality (Mb/sec), the type of wireless single (802.11a/b/g/n/other), and it's priority level (real time A/V to have to be first).
3) As mentioned, that has nothing to do with the display. What file format and quality level is it set to?
4) I disagree (... X gets the square
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
3) Agreed.
4) That's just a point of view (as is mine).
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
Er...HDTV sucks? Yes, some broadcasters do starve the bit rate a bit but in comparison to SDTV its still better.
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
Draft-N yes. G sometimes. 720p most likely because of costs for Apple on iTunes.
Vinea
OK, don't want to get into a pissing content here, but....
Neither do I, My keyboard is still sticky from soilling Coke on it.
1) Analog and digital broadcasts on an HDTV just sucks; so I haven't been "fine" with it. Certainly won't be, if I am plonking down thousands of dollars for an HDTV.
I hope they change it too, but there are still too many people not using HDTVs to make it viable, I guess.
2) I don't understand what you mean -- are you saying it will, or it won't?
I'm saying it's possible. If it's 1080p @60frames/sec, then no, but 720p over a dedicated wireless connection should work, especially with pre-n. I currently watch DVDs over 802.11g, rarely with any issues. DVDs need around 10Mb/sec to stream. While H.264 at DVD quality needs less than that if it's decompressed on the remotely machine, and quite a bit more of it's decompressed on the originating machine. I have looked for exact answers for these rates but can't find anything solid to quote, unfortunately.
Also, there are several companies making dedicated devices for streaming Uncompressed data streams over dedicated, proprietary wireless networks with a 1Gb/sec transfer rate. Hopefully all will be revealed tomorrow.
To anyone who believes that Apple will release a HDTV display complete with a tuner, here's a question for you:
which tuner?
Not a bad point but likely for the US market so perhaps ATSC tuner with HDMI in which 90% of folks would have ended up using anyway. From whence are you getting HD programming without a provider supplied box? Via cable card? Yah...welcome to Hassleville. OTA? Mkay...yah there are OTA users of HD. Probably not enough that don't have a HD DVR to worry much about...heck, I'd drop the ATSC tuner as well.
DVR capability is not in the cards for iTV IMHO and dependent on some DVR capability interacting with iTunes.
Vinea
To anyone who believes that Apple will release a HDTV display complete with a tuner, here's a question for you:
which tuner?
Apple designs and manufactures for an international market. More than half of its revenue comes from outside of the US. (But most of its bloggers/geeks/rumorists come from the US...)
Americans use ATSC but most of the world does not. Europe in particular, is a huge investor in DVB and Apple would have to specifically cater to this market. And what sort of tuner? Cable, terrestrial, satellite?
I think the odds are low that Apple would cater with distinct hardware for different countries -- it's not what Apple likes to do (apart from obvious distinctions between SKUs).
Same thing goes for any DVR-like functionality in the iTV. DVRs require country or region-specific tooling and software and systems (like broadcasting guides), some of which may not actually exist.
I don't think Apple does much manufacturing anymore, they design hardware and write software for user control over that hardware. I think that there are very few companies that actually make TV's today, a lot less than sell them. Apple could do what all the other "Brands" do and offload the manufacturing of the TV's to the companies that do that to Apple's design specifications and using Apple's user interface software. The only problem that they would have in supporting the other standards is a bit of hardware/software design and integration (probably not much more of an investment to support 2 standards than 1) and managing/maintaining a stock for each standard for the countries that you are selling them in.
A bigger problem would be OTA/Cable/Satelite options. Since you would want the same user experience from each, and offer the possibility for a consumer to have more than one or switch from one to the other, you might be forced to offer all 3 offer all 2 as consumer upgradable "cards" that could be purchased and swapped out as needed. Both of these options would add cost to the products, but without them you loose control over the user experience when using the TV as a TV and force the consumer to use the cable/satelite box.
Not a bad point but likely for the US market so perhaps ATSC tuner with HDMI in which 90% of folks would have ended up using anyway. From whence are you getting HD programming without a provider supplied box? Via cable card?
DVB-T. Used by millions of people around the world.
Designing a display that can only be used in ATSC markets (HDMI or no HDMI) wouldn't be typical Apple marketing. In fact, it would be plain dumb. Unlike much of the American IT industry, Apple do tend to think internationally. (This is not a slur against Americans per se, each region is much the same -- thinking parochically that their devices/systems/regimes are the only ones that matter. Apple is different in that it realizes that the US market alone is a minority market and that much of the growth is distinctly outside of the US.)
As for manufacturing, well obviously Apple doesn't make all components themselves, but they do have to _have_ them manufactured and Apple doesn't typically like products that need to be engineered for specific regions. Let alone have features (online TV guides, frinstance) that may be enabled in one region but not available in another.
I see little value in an Apple branded HDTV. There's not much that Apple can "value add" to this market, as they're heavily reliant on commodity manufacturing here. It's not like they can suddenly design, prototype and build their own range of 100cm LCDs or plasmas that would be even remotely price-competitive with an LG. Apple do indeed price themselves over the market, aiming squarely at affluent young people, but there's a huge chasm between paying an extra $100 on an mp3 player because it provides chic cred, and paying an extra grand or two for an Apple badged plasma.
who??
//AAPL is beyond prototype on large-screen technologies (for a larger monitor or possibly Apple-branded HDTV),"//?
I can't wait to say I told you so on this one.
Er...HDTV sucks?
Vinea
Um....that's not what I said. I said "analog" or "digital" on HDTV sucks. (NOT "HDTV broadcasts").
Hopefully all will be revealed tomorrow.
I like that.
I still don't see how this translates to Apple entering the high-end home display market, but... whatevva. I'm still perfectly willing to be surprised on this one.
No matter what they do, some of us will be surprised.
But, I surely hope it will be in a good way.
Note that you just state the wide screen hi-defs a big sellers. The original quote is talking 'big screen' market. They aren't mutually inclusive. The sub-$1000 20-30" wide screens are extremely popular. But I don't know who'd call those 'Big-screen'.
Of course, for a company that espoused years ago about "the year of HD", you'd think they would've had ONE monitor that was HDTV compatible (i.e. HDMI port, or component video port, or something that would allow you to view HD content).
Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. They, and I, were talking about screens of 42" and above. That qualifies as big screen.
These days, when one talks about wide screen it can pretty much mean large size. There are 32", and 37" sizes, but basing a discussion on those would be pointless.
Hate to break it to you, but 640x480 aint exactly great.
Since we're talking about "big screens", I'll point out that first and foremost, iTunes videos are compressed for hand-held devices. They don't scale up particularly wonderfully to real large screen displays such as projectors, where artefecating, color banding, edge enhancement, blocking and so on show up frequently.
Resolution in SD isn't that important. The higher resolution in europe is offset by the lower quality of the other parts of the equation. The lower scan rates, for example, result in many motion artifacts that are not nearly as noticable in NTSC. Which is not just used in the US, by the way. The higher resolution adds further to those artifacts. There are other problems as well. So don't gloat!
Um....that's not what I said. I said "analog" or "digital" on HDTV sucks. (NOT "HDTV broadcasts").
Not on all of them. Only if the upscaling done internally is poor, and doesn't account for the scaling effects on the noise.
Some HDTV's scale beautifully, and SD looks fine.
Gee, this sounds familiar.
After all the humiliations you've been through it would be nice to see that your "prediction" came to happen, if only a year later.
Not on all of them. Only if the upscaling done internally is poor....
On mine, it certainly does.
I lost you on the rest....
Not on all of them. Only if the upscaling done internally is poor, and doesn't account for the scaling effects on the noise.
Some HDTV's scale beautifully, and SD looks fine.
No no...he said it right and I read it wrong...SD on HDTV sucks. Well...LARGE HDTVs anyway. I won't go as far to say that SD cable on 100" screen is "unwatchable" but it is pretty bad. You can't do much with an already bit starved SD digital cable feed even with a good scaler. Nicely scaled pixellated mess is still pixellated mess blown up to huge proportions.
Vinea
DVB-T. Used by millions of people around the world.
Market penetration for non-UK users is still pretty piss poor if I remember right. Australia is under 20%. UK around maybe 40% but only because Sky and cable must carry free channels. Anywhere dominated by sat and cable won't see a lot of DVB-T traction. Nor are you locked out...you attach your DVB-T STB to your Apple HDTV via HDMI...another specification valid for Europe for HD.
In any case Apple will be going for a IPTV strategy via iTunes. EPGs etc will be as world wide as iTunes. Which is somewhat spotty...especially for video.
Apple do indeed price themselves over the market, aiming squarely at affluent young people, but there's a huge chasm between paying an extra $100 on an mp3 player because it provides chic cred, and paying an extra grand or two for an Apple badged plasma.
Eh...I suspect the price delta will be a few hundred dollars if such a beast exists. Enough to cover the iTV and branding. As a value added its probably worth it (i.e. wireless iTunes integration into your TV).
Vinea