Apple's announcement of the iTV tells me that they're not going to release a television any time soon. The iTV will be huge because ANYBODY will be able to use it if they have a TV with component inputs or better.
Could be the generic iTunes experience that works on Windows and Mac, or it could be like Sony's Bravia+AOL+Yahoo and work exclusively on an AppleTV. I have some real doubts about this scenario.
I don't see a problem with Apple coming out with "Lexus" pricing. It's what people expect, after all.
Companies have a history of first coming out with a premium product line. Once that line is established, and the agreement is that it is indeed premium, they then move to the next lower level, using the same branding. Then they move it still lower.
People will always associate the brand with the premium product line, and eye the less expensive versions as being of the same quality. Lexus itself has gone that way, as has Mercedes, and BMW.
It's more difficult to move the other way, as numerous brands have discovered. Cheap is going to be perceived as cheap for a long time.
To back up your statement, that is the reason we have Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti. They couldn't sell luxury cars with aeconomy car moniker.
I don't know if Apple will actually make an AIO iTV/LCD, but I can certainly see a market for it.
Many consumers (i.e. non-techies, non-videophiles) are confused by universal remotes and having a ton of different boxes to deal with, not to mention the tangle of cables that have to be set up. Think of a setup with most of the goodies. Many people have a TV, a DVR, a DVD player, and Apple hopes they'll also have an iTV to boot. That's three extra boxes to deal with, different video sources to select (which many people struggle to understand), and a bunch of wires to connect. I think there's definitely a market for a gorgeous, sleek TV that has nothing but a power cord and possibly one external video source (cable or satellite), with a slot-loading DVD drive on the side. No extra boxes lying around, just the TV. Switching video sources is much more easy to understand through the FrontRow interface than a button on an overloaded remote. And Apple might get away with using the current incredibly simple Apple remote, or perhaps one with just a couple more buttons. Another bonus, the user only has one remote to deal with and they don't have to program it since it already works on all of the components in the system. It would be pure simplicity.
Apple could also throw in some little extras. They could incorporate ambient light sensors to automatically adjust the display's brightness and contrast based on the surroundings, thereby eliminating yet another complexity in today's TV. If the user had a surround sound system, the audio could be beamed to it over Airport Express rather than having the box and cables taking up space by the TV. And if Apple wanted to push things, they could pop an iSight into it and turn the TV into a giant iChat and video phone system, easily accessible through FrontRow. All your AddressBook contacts would be right there waiting for you. If you received a call, it could just mute and/or pause what you're watching and either switch your view to the call or display it as picture-in-picture.
I'm sure there are more Apple touches they could throw in to make the idea compelling and worth a bit of premium pricing. If they can convince users that the advantages of all-in-one outweigh the risks, like they have with the iMac, they could easily have a winner. Apple would certainly produce a separate iTV box for those who don't want to buy into the whole AIO system, but this is a product I'd certainly consider.
The *only* thing I'd point out here, since I have no idea whether they will, or they won't, is that this same reasoning has been used to state why Apple *MUST* jump into the econobox computer market, ala Dell. After all, it's a best selling category, so that alone would be enough reason... but we know that's not true.
I dunno. They may come out with one that's the Lexus end of things, but then they risk the same "Apple is expensive!" perception problem they have with the Macs. It just seems... not exactly *wrong* to my gut, but at least unright.
My guess is still that the iTV will be an inexpensive (relatively) add-on box for the average consumer to plop into their existing home theatre system, and *extend* the Mac experience. It won't be a full computer, it'll be just a gateway to the computer they already have. If it's Windows, it'll offer iTunes (music and video) integration. If it's a Mac, it'll offer a lot more, including, hopefully, the VNC-ish feature you mentioned.
Tying it into a $$$ display, however... doesn't feel right.
Now, if they do that projection display idea I threw around a couple years ago...
I agree with Kickaha. The "Apple should make a large screen LR display reminds me of the "Apple should make a projector" arguments.
Apple LCD monitors have a niche, despite their relatively poor price/performance ratio, because people like the idea of their monitor matching their computer, and it's an easy decision to make when you're buying your system.
On the other hand, people shop for large screen displays far away from the computer purchasing process. They're thinking about DVD and cable hook-ups, and how the game is going to look.
If Apple offers a large screen LCD or Plasma marketed as a home theater display, I just can't see the upside for the consumer. Apple industrial design doesn't really help out that much, since the current crop of LCD/Plasma displays are perfectly fine looking, by most people lights, and there's no need to match an aluminum bezel, say, to other stuff in your system.
I find it hard to believe Apple can impress on image quality-- like projectors, this is a highly competitive segment with huge amounts of money being spent by companies with massive investments in the technology to improve resolution, brightness, contrast, color fidelity, scaling, durability, etc. Apple could rebrand the innards of a good looking display from another manufacturer, but is that really worth the effort?
And making an integrated iTV display really strikes me as a stretch. You're adding cost to a (probably) already pricey unit for the ability to use a very narrowly deployed capacity. It's almost inevitably going to be true that you would be able to buy a comparable flat screen for at least the $300 less that a standalone iTV would set you back, and probably less than that.
Yes, an AIO is "simpler", but if there were a big demand for that kind of "simple" there would be a selection of 52" Plasmas with built in DVD players. People seem to be able to handle getting the DVD hooked up, and the iTV box looks to present itself about the same way, connection wise.
Offering a box that turns any of the available flat screens, at any of the multiple price points or sizes or resolutions or case designs currently available, into a magic computer display just makes so much more sense, just as the Airport Express, which turns any home audio system into a magic iTunes playback system, makes so much more sense than some kind of odd foray by Apple into "AirTune HT Receivers".
Well, I'll just go ahead and say it. I think this "analyist" is an idiot. The iTV is Apple's large screen technology. Unless they've got some serious patents on some things beyond current LCDs and plasmas, forget about anything else.
I caught a business segment on CNN yesterday and the analysts were basically saying large-screens had all but become a buyers market (for the TVs themselves), and they were basically biting their tounges to keep from saying that the bottom was about to drop out from under some of the companies that had put too much capital into manufacturing and sales for this market.
And this guy is recommending you "buy" Apple based on Apple coming out with a large screen HDTV monitor???
I think perhaps iTV is a tad too close to the AirPort Express which didn't exactly set the world on fire. A HDTV with iTV intergrated into it coupled with iTunes has a more iPodish potential. Not that Apple is going to corner the market on HDTVs but in terms of capturing mindshare a HDTV that only needs to be plugged into the power outlet that can do HD wirelessly has a level of panache that the rest of the market doesn't currently enjoy.
Vinea
AitPort Express was missing a critical component for most people... the remote, or any other way to controll it away from the computer.
For Apple to target the download movie/TV market successfully they need to make it accessable the mass market, which means that they have to leave the screen out. That said, it doesn't mean that they can't come out with a TV, just that they need an affordable solution that as many consumers as possible can afford with an elegant enough of a GUI, ease of use, and a large enough of a media library to attract those consumers.
For Apple to target the download movie/TV market successfully they need to make it accessable the mass market, which means that they have to leave the screen out. That said, it doesn't mean that they can't come out with a TV, just that they need an affordable solution that as many consumers as possible can afford with an elegant enough of a GUI, ease of use, and a large enough of a media library to attract those consumers.
This is just something that popped in my head while reading your post so take it with a grain of salt...
Jobs introduced the iTV last August, which is rare for Apple to do, much less one that isn't near ready and has no shipping date. I wouldn't put it past Jobs to re-introduce the iTV tomorrow and then do his "one more thing" catchphrase to announce how they "made it even better".
Maybe, just maybe, they will have an entry level iTV and then a couple combo iTV/Cinema Display/iSight options for those who want the compete Apple experience.
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 get all the general enthusiasm for such a product, or the possibility that it could be bundled with iTV.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
This is just something that popped in my head while reading your post so take it with a grain of salt...
Jobs introduced the iTV last August, which is rare for Apple to do, much less one that isn't near ready and has no shipping date. I wouldn't put it past Jobs to re-introduce the iTV tomorrow and then do his "one more thing" catchphrase to announce how they "made it even better".
Maybe, just maybe, they will have an entry level iTV and then a couple combo iTV/Cinema Display/iSight options for those who want the compete Apple experience.
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
I don't get all the general enthusiasm for such a product, or the possibility that it could be bundled with iTV.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
Could someone pls enlighten.
1) I think we can assume Apple will roll out higher quality video downloads once they have everything in place. When they started the whole video download thing, they were concentrating on the small-screen iPod. Now that they're releasing the iTV, it only makes sense that they'll provide something of higher quality. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft is offering HD rentals through XBox.
2) From what I understand, streaming HD isn't too hard over a home network. Over the internet may not be possible in some markets, but most people's networks are much faster than their internet.
3) Are you sure you're actually taking your 7 mega-pixel photos at full resolution? That's approximately 3500x2000, way more than a 24 inch iMac.
4) If Apple were to enter this market, I'm sure they'd do something more than just build another TV. Those other guys are doing nothing original.
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).
That is the best argument I've read for Apple not branding there own TVs. However, Apple would most likely only sell these in North America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Womble
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.
A built in DVR goes against everything logical; I don't know how anyone ever thought it possible.
1) A DVR will cannibalize iTS video purchases. (Why pay the days after it airs, when I can get it for free the moment it airs, and at better quality?)
2) Fast CPU, large amount of RAM and large HDDs are needed for recording and storing and playing video... especially when doing all three at the same time.
3) The iTV will cost around $300 so it's not even possible to get that much high performance and capacity hardware into that little box (it's half the size of the Mac Mini, but it's supposed to be able to out perform the Mac Mini?)
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
Ummm ... no. Since depending on the features, it was actually one of the only Apple products I've ever considered buying as soon as they release it.
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
Apple certainly has the clout to make everyone follow them into a market. And it was odd that it was announced so far ahead of schedule. Maybe it is a red herring to force other manufactures to dwindle there financial resources.
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.
I don't get all the general enthusiasm for such a product, or the possibility that it could be bundled with iTV.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
Could someone pls enlighten.
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).
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.
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.
Comments
I don't see a problem with Apple coming out with "Lexus" pricing. It's what people expect, after all.
Companies have a history of first coming out with a premium product line. Once that line is established, and the agreement is that it is indeed premium, they then move to the next lower level, using the same branding. Then they move it still lower.
People will always associate the brand with the premium product line, and eye the less expensive versions as being of the same quality. Lexus itself has gone that way, as has Mercedes, and BMW.
It's more difficult to move the other way, as numerous brands have discovered. Cheap is going to be perceived as cheap for a long time.
To back up your statement, that is the reason we have Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti. They couldn't sell luxury cars with aeconomy car moniker.
Many consumers (i.e. non-techies, non-videophiles) are confused by universal remotes and having a ton of different boxes to deal with, not to mention the tangle of cables that have to be set up. Think of a setup with most of the goodies. Many people have a TV, a DVR, a DVD player, and Apple hopes they'll also have an iTV to boot. That's three extra boxes to deal with, different video sources to select (which many people struggle to understand), and a bunch of wires to connect. I think there's definitely a market for a gorgeous, sleek TV that has nothing but a power cord and possibly one external video source (cable or satellite), with a slot-loading DVD drive on the side. No extra boxes lying around, just the TV. Switching video sources is much more easy to understand through the FrontRow interface than a button on an overloaded remote. And Apple might get away with using the current incredibly simple Apple remote, or perhaps one with just a couple more buttons. Another bonus, the user only has one remote to deal with and they don't have to program it since it already works on all of the components in the system. It would be pure simplicity.
Apple could also throw in some little extras. They could incorporate ambient light sensors to automatically adjust the display's brightness and contrast based on the surroundings, thereby eliminating yet another complexity in today's TV. If the user had a surround sound system, the audio could be beamed to it over Airport Express rather than having the box and cables taking up space by the TV. And if Apple wanted to push things, they could pop an iSight into it and turn the TV into a giant iChat and video phone system, easily accessible through FrontRow. All your AddressBook contacts would be right there waiting for you. If you received a call, it could just mute and/or pause what you're watching and either switch your view to the call or display it as picture-in-picture.
I'm sure there are more Apple touches they could throw in to make the idea compelling and worth a bit of premium pricing. If they can convince users that the advantages of all-in-one outweigh the risks, like they have with the iMac, they could easily have a winner. Apple would certainly produce a separate iTV box for those who don't want to buy into the whole AIO system, but this is a product I'd certainly consider.
The *only* thing I'd point out here, since I have no idea whether they will, or they won't, is that this same reasoning has been used to state why Apple *MUST* jump into the econobox computer market, ala Dell. After all, it's a best selling category, so that alone would be enough reason... but we know that's not true.
I dunno. They may come out with one that's the Lexus end of things, but then they risk the same "Apple is expensive!" perception problem they have with the Macs. It just seems... not exactly *wrong* to my gut, but at least unright.
My guess is still that the iTV will be an inexpensive (relatively) add-on box for the average consumer to plop into their existing home theatre system, and *extend* the Mac experience. It won't be a full computer, it'll be just a gateway to the computer they already have. If it's Windows, it'll offer iTunes (music and video) integration. If it's a Mac, it'll offer a lot more, including, hopefully, the VNC-ish feature you mentioned.
Tying it into a $$$ display, however... doesn't feel right.
Now, if they do that projection display idea I threw around a couple years ago...
I agree with Kickaha. The "Apple should make a large screen LR display reminds me of the "Apple should make a projector" arguments.
Apple LCD monitors have a niche, despite their relatively poor price/performance ratio, because people like the idea of their monitor matching their computer, and it's an easy decision to make when you're buying your system.
On the other hand, people shop for large screen displays far away from the computer purchasing process. They're thinking about DVD and cable hook-ups, and how the game is going to look.
If Apple offers a large screen LCD or Plasma marketed as a home theater display, I just can't see the upside for the consumer. Apple industrial design doesn't really help out that much, since the current crop of LCD/Plasma displays are perfectly fine looking, by most people lights, and there's no need to match an aluminum bezel, say, to other stuff in your system.
I find it hard to believe Apple can impress on image quality-- like projectors, this is a highly competitive segment with huge amounts of money being spent by companies with massive investments in the technology to improve resolution, brightness, contrast, color fidelity, scaling, durability, etc. Apple could rebrand the innards of a good looking display from another manufacturer, but is that really worth the effort?
And making an integrated iTV display really strikes me as a stretch. You're adding cost to a (probably) already pricey unit for the ability to use a very narrowly deployed capacity. It's almost inevitably going to be true that you would be able to buy a comparable flat screen for at least the $300 less that a standalone iTV would set you back, and probably less than that.
Yes, an AIO is "simpler", but if there were a big demand for that kind of "simple" there would be a selection of 52" Plasmas with built in DVD players. People seem to be able to handle getting the DVD hooked up, and the iTV box looks to present itself about the same way, connection wise.
Offering a box that turns any of the available flat screens, at any of the multiple price points or sizes or resolutions or case designs currently available, into a magic computer display just makes so much more sense, just as the Airport Express, which turns any home audio system into a magic iTunes playback system, makes so much more sense than some kind of odd foray by Apple into "AirTune HT Receivers".
I caught a business segment on CNN yesterday and the analysts were basically saying large-screens had all but become a buyers market (for the TVs themselves), and they were basically biting their tounges to keep from saying that the bottom was about to drop out from under some of the companies that had put too much capital into manufacturing and sales for this market.
And this guy is recommending you "buy" Apple based on Apple coming out with a large screen HDTV monitor???
I think perhaps iTV is a tad too close to the AirPort Express which didn't exactly set the world on fire. A HDTV with iTV intergrated into it coupled with iTunes has a more iPodish potential. Not that Apple is going to corner the market on HDTVs but in terms of capturing mindshare a HDTV that only needs to be plugged into the power outlet that can do HD wirelessly has a level of panache that the rest of the market doesn't currently enjoy.
Vinea
AitPort Express was missing a critical component for most people... the remote, or any other way to controll it away from the computer.
For Apple to target the download movie/TV market successfully they need to make it accessable the mass market, which means that they have to leave the screen out. That said, it doesn't mean that they can't come out with a TV, just that they need an affordable solution that as many consumers as possible can afford with an elegant enough of a GUI, ease of use, and a large enough of a media library to attract those consumers.
And this guy is recommending you "buy" Apple based on Apple coming out with a large screen HDTV monitor???
I don't think his recommendation is solely on the idea of a TV. He's been recommending it for months now.
AitPort Express was missing a critical component for most people... the remote, or any other way to controll it away from the computer.
You can control it with the remote that apple includes with it's macs via FrontRow.
For Apple to target the download movie/TV market successfully they need to make it accessable the mass market, which means that they have to leave the screen out. That said, it doesn't mean that they can't come out with a TV, just that they need an affordable solution that as many consumers as possible can afford with an elegant enough of a GUI, ease of use, and a large enough of a media library to attract those consumers.
This is just something that popped in my head while reading your post so take it with a grain of salt...
Jobs introduced the iTV last August, which is rare for Apple to do, much less one that isn't near ready and has no shipping date. I wouldn't put it past Jobs to re-introduce the iTV tomorrow and then do his "one more thing" catchphrase to announce how they "made it even better".
Maybe, just maybe, they will have an entry level iTV and then a couple combo iTV/Cinema Display/iSight options for those who want the compete Apple experience.
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.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
Could someone pls enlighten.
This is just something that popped in my head while reading your post so take it with a grain of salt...
Jobs introduced the iTV last August, which is rare for Apple to do, much less one that isn't near ready and has no shipping date. I wouldn't put it past Jobs to re-introduce the iTV tomorrow and then do his "one more thing" catchphrase to announce how they "made it even better".
Maybe, just maybe, they will have an entry level iTV and then a couple combo iTV/Cinema Display/iSight options for those who want the compete Apple experience.
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
I don't get all the general enthusiasm for such a product, or the possibility that it could be bundled with iTV.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
Could someone pls enlighten.
1) I think we can assume Apple will roll out higher quality video downloads once they have everything in place. When they started the whole video download thing, they were concentrating on the small-screen iPod. Now that they're releasing the iTV, it only makes sense that they'll provide something of higher quality. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft is offering HD rentals through XBox.
2) From what I understand, streaming HD isn't too hard over a home network. Over the internet may not be possible in some markets, but most people's networks are much faster than their internet.
3) Are you sure you're actually taking your 7 mega-pixel photos at full resolution? That's approximately 3500x2000, way more than a 24 inch iMac.
4) If Apple were to enter this market, I'm sure they'd do something more than just build another TV. Those other guys are doing nothing original.
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).
That is the best argument I've read for Apple not branding there own TVs. However, Apple would most likely only sell these in North America.
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.
A built in DVR goes against everything logical; I don't know how anyone ever thought it possible.
1) A DVR will cannibalize iTS video purchases. (Why pay the days after it airs, when I can get it for free the moment it airs, and at better quality?)
2) Fast CPU, large amount of RAM and large HDDs are needed for recording and storing and playing video... especially when doing all three at the same time.
3) The iTV will cost around $300 so it's not even possible to get that much high performance and capacity hardware into that little box (it's half the size of the Mac Mini, but it's supposed to be able to out perform the Mac Mini?)
1)
3) Are you sure you're actually taking your 7 mega-pixel photos at full resolution? That's approximately 3500x2000, way more than a 24 inch iMac.
Yes. (That's why I qualified with "decent lighting" in parentheses). Perhaps it is graininess...
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
Ummm ... no. Since depending on the features, it was actually one of the only Apple products I've ever considered buying as soon as they release it.
Wouldn't it be the ultimate kick in the teeth to the competition if he came out and said "iTV proved to be a product without a market, so we killed it." Microsoft and Sony would both plotz!
Apple certainly has the clout to make everyone follow them into a market. And it was odd that it was announced so far ahead of schedule. Maybe it is a red herring to force other manufactures to dwindle there financial resources.
A built in DVR goes against everything logical; etc etc
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.
I don't get all the general enthusiasm for such a product, or the possibility that it could be bundled with iTV.
(1) Dowloaded video from the iTunes Store is crappy quality for any display much larger than an iPod-sized screen (OK, maybe a 5-inch LCD screen);
(2) I suppose one could wirelessly stream HD video playing on a notebook or desktop, but does currenly available technology allow for bits and bytes of such density to seamlessly stream?
(3) I find that even a 7 mega-pixel camera shot (even with decent lighting) begins to pixelate slightly on my 24-inch iMac screen; I can't imagine that it will look all that great on a 42-inch screen.
(4) I think Apple is straying too far from its core competencies. As others have pointed out, this was the kind of diversification move that did not work for (reasonably) smart and capable companies such as Dell, Gateway, and HP.
Could someone pls enlighten.
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
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.
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.