Jobs says he cracked the 'interface'. That, a stand-alone TV does not make. Only this rumour monger said that.
I can see Siri as the interface.
Picture(pun intended) this - A simple remote like today but with a microphone and it transmits voice command to what ever device this it. This makes sense to me. NOT open mic on the box. Too much ambiant noise.
Second point - making a HDTV does not mean just go out and buy a screen. Look at all the reviews for TVs - sharpness etc, color correction ... blah blah blah. IMO - just don't think Apple would get into that. If they do, I would think from an existing brand name(Samsung... d'oh)
INSTEAD - Build Apple TV into one nice box that can control (by voice) -cable if you must, internent radio/ streaming, cloud music play lists or what ever is commanded(think start trek), mirror games from ipad etc, stream 1080p movies etc and output all this to the MONITOR and SPEAKERS. Yes very high end would be left out, but Apple tends to look for the 80%-ers.
Whos the crazy one now?(being rhetorical, don't answer that )
From a TV that could be 10 or more feet away from the speaker? Speaking to my iPhone up to my ear or with headphone/mic on still has poor results with background noise. Sometimes it's some faint noise that the receiving party claims is quite loud as if I'm holding the mic up to a loudspeaker. Seems to me there is a long way to go before we can truly eliminate unwanted sounds from being processed.
And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.
I don't see the benefit of a stand-alone set. Better hookup device to replace a cable box etc yes.
Everything built into a home theatre receiver type device makes better sense to me. M'eh, I'm not 'the crazy one' though.
I understand your point but a set-top box (e.g. Apple TV) can't control the TV itself, only the signal to the TV. It would take a true Apple-built TV to integrate the two functions of signal control and TV control. This shouldn't be overlooked as a modern television is more than just a monitor with a tuner and various input ports.
And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.
I was typing that up as an edit a few minutes ago. That could work. I can see people saying "Turn on Fox and Friends", "Find me reruns of M.A.S.H.", or more in line with Apple's strengths "Something funny like Seinfeld" where AppleTV Genius looks for shows that people that watch Seinfeld also watch (active data mining) or recommend (elected data mining).
Any Apple HDTV would have to be CHEAPER than competitors' models, and I just don't see how that'd happen and keep the usual Apple hardware flair.
And the usual Apple hardware profit margins.
Yeah, I don't see this panning out either. But let's consider what was said:
"a source close to an Asian component supplier claimed in September that Apple was building prototype models of its rumored high-definition television set."
First, of course this could be the usual BS, or even something Apple did deliberately to start false rumors to disguise true intents. Remember all the iPhone5 reports?
Second, if this IS true, it does not necessarily mean sets are being built for sale with an Apple brand. It's possible some prototypes have been built in order to demonstrate to manufacturers how the Apple-spec'd set works.
I still believe these TVs would be 'Made for AppleTV', rather than BE 'Apple TV's. I think AppleTV will continue to be an add-on box, and that 'Made for AppleTV' sets will contain parts that will tie them more closely with AppleTV boxes. The 'Made for' label will be an edge for manufacturers who adopt it, Apple will get whatever additional functionality it cannot get as a complete standalone, everyone wins.
I just do not see it as good strategy for Apple to wade into the cutthroat TV business. It's better strategy for Apple to make TV makers compete with each other using their consumer-established 'Made for' brand (somewhat like 'Intel Inside') and just keep making little black add-on boxes. It even gives Apple a foothold in outlets like Sears, where most TVs are bought: "They're loading up your new TV in the loading bay, Mr. Brown. Do you have the AppleTV box already, or should I add one on?"
No matter what brand/size/price the TV, Apple can sell a box for it, instead of competing with it. Remember, MOST TVs aren't bought by gotta-have-it gadget freaks or Apple fans, but by average people with other centers of interest. These aren't computers - they aren't even cell phones. It's something many people buy in the same place they buy a washing machine or dishwasher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909
Beyond that, all of Apple products are typically priced above the competition... Selling a high quality product and once again not participating in the "race to the bottom" strategy.
Well, no. This is a whole new Apple these days. The iPad is priced below roughly equivalent products. So are most Macs, feature for feature. And AT&T GIVES iPhones away with new contracts.
Being price-conscious does not necessarily mean cutting corners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
[*]The additional cables and boxes are 'unsightly' in the broadest sense of the word.
'Made for iPod' devices usually have a place to dock an iPod. These TVs could have a slot in the back for an AppleTV allowing it to access an IR receiver (or whatever) on the front of the set. Remember, they're 'Made for AppleTV'. Problem solved.
As far as new, high-tech display technologies and so on are concerned: This is exactly why Apple should not be making the entire TV. Some people WANT such displays, but some people just want a bargain TV (especially these days). No matter what you want in a display, you should have the option of an Apple-designed set controller. Let the TV manufacturers compete over 3D, new cutting-edge display technologies, display size and style, price, plasma vs. LCD/LED/projector/whatever, speaker options and so on. Let consumers choose, and then plug in an AppleTV.
From a TV that could be 10 or more feet away from the speaker? Speaking to my iPhone up to my ear or with headphone/mic on still has poor results with background noise. Sometimes it's some faint noise that the receiving party claims is quite loud as if I'm holding the mic up to a loudspeaker. Seems to me there is a long way to go before we can truly eliminate unwanted sounds from being processed.
Random background noise is a totally different problem.
If you know what the source audio is (as an Apple HDTV would) you can subtract it from the resulting recording.
I actually think that isolating voice commands from a room where a few people are have a conversation would be harder than isolating voice commands from a single person watching a movie with the volume cranked up.
That's where things like directional microphones and face tracking come into play.
At the end of the day though you are correct. It's possible to manufacture scenarios where Siri on a TV wouldn't work.
However the same kind of problems will still exist if the iPhone was your microphone. It might be a little more reliable though.
The only fool-proof method, i think, would be to have a bunch of microphones placed around the room that your iPhone mic could tap into for some crazy multi-layered noise cancellation.
oh and maybe the Apple Remote will distinguish between devices? My MBP listens to the same one as my AppleTV, is there anyway to fix that?
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
However the same kind of problems will still exist if the iPhone was your microphone. It might be a little more reliable though.
The only fool-proof method, i think, would be to have a bunch of microphones placed around the room that your iPhone mic could tap into for some crazy multi-layered noise cancellation.
1) Considering the space, the mic in the remote could be larger and better for this sort of use.
2) Mics around the room is an interesting thought. Putting them in the speakers around the room would likely do the trick. I wonder what kind of processing that would require.
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorPaul
System Preference settings on your MBP. Under Security/General/"disable IR remote"
What's the problem? They could have you talk in your iPhone, talk in the remote, use a directional mic aimed at the room sweet spot, use a camera to detect the speaker (maybe even lip read), use a noise canceling algorithm, etc.
? this is a television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Same prediction made about the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Nobody would buy them at that price. And we all know how those predictions panned out don't we.
No one's gonna buy a $5,000 TV anymore. That's my prediction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch
No matter what brand/size/price the TV, Apple can sell a box for it, instead of competing with it.
Exactly. That's why Apple selling an HDTV is ludicrous.
It's basically the third oldest electronics market. It's PRETTY DANG SATURATED. Entering it isn't like entering the PMP market or smartphone market. TVs have been around a couple of years now.
Televisions should be dumb sticks. Sticks is a bad metaphor, but it serves the purpose. Sticks.
Your television is a stick. You want a bigger stick? Go get one on the cheap. You want a stick with sanded bark (AMOLED panel or whatever, once they get cheaper)? Go buy a stick with sanded bark.
You want to have two sticks, REALLY REALLY close together and then blurry (3D gimmick)? Go do that, too.
And then buy an Apple TV, plug it in, and know it will work with whatever stick you buy.
Any Apple HDTV would have to be CHEAPER than competitors' models, and I just don't see how that'd happen and keep the usual Apple hardware flair.
And the usual Apple hardware profit margins.
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
Yeah, they've been saying that.
The difference here lies in the age of the market, the mindset of what a television "is", and the fact that no one really wants to buy a $5,000 42" TV anymore.
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
There are some major differences.
First of all, people on this type of forum we're mostly wanting to enter the smartphone market because they thought it could be a lot better and that Apple's experience and success with CE would be ideal. There were dozens upon dozens of mockups of how people envisioned the iPhone, which was named for at least a year by Apple users before the January 2007 announcement.
Second, those that didn't think Apple could succeed in the smartphone business overwhelming stated it was because the market was saturated. The argument with the TV market is that Apple can't really bring anything new to the table with a basic TV, as well as very real logistical issue with storing large TVs usually found in warehouse stores, not in a the back rooms of boutique shops.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV. Apple doesn't sell many Mac Pros yet a single Mac Pro takes up less space and makes a lot more profit than a 50" TV.
There are clearly some areas in which Apple's strengths could benefit users TV viewing, but there are so many issues at hand with cable and sat, and hard to see how Apple could bypass them or make a one-size-fits-all solution without CableCards. Look what happened with GoogleTV. Look how long it took for Apple to create an iPhone that connected to more than the highly standardized GSM/UMTS network.
The difference here lies in the age of the market, the mindset of what a television "is", and the fact that no one really wants to buy a $5,000 42" TV anymore.
If Apple was able to absolutely control every network in the world then an Apple tv would work without question.
I don't want to be restricted to watching certain shows each week... 20 episodes over 6 months. I want to watch "some" things continuously until conclusion over a period of 2 - 3 weeks. Anyone who could arrange that would have my vote... even if I had to buy their tv (but not if it was $5000 )
First of all, people on this type of forum we're mostly wanting to enter the smartphone market because they thought it could be a lot better and that Apple's experience and success with CE would be ideal. There were dozens upon dozens of mockups of how people envisioned the iPhone, which was named for at least a year by Apple users before the January 2007 announcement.
Second, those that didn't think Apple could succeed in the smartphone business overwhelming stated it was because the market was saturated. The argument with the TV market is that Apple can't really bring anything new to the table with a basic TV, as well as very real logistical issue with storing large TVs usually found in warehouse stores, not in a the back rooms of boutique shops.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV. Apple doesn't sell many Mac Pros yet a single Mac Pro takes up less space and makes a lot more profit than a 50" TV.
There are clearly some areas in which Apple's strengths could benefit users TV viewing, but there are so many issues at hand with cable and sat, and hard to see how Apple could bypass them or make a one-size-fits-all solution without CableCards. Look what happened with GoogleTV. Look how long it took for Apple to create an iPhone that connected to more than the highly standardized GSM/UMTS network.
I'm not completely sold on whether or not Apple will make an HDTv (even though its executives did warn that a future product would be coming up that would lower its profit margins slightly). The only thing is that much of your concerns have viable solutions.
1) you mention that some people thought that the mobile space was saturated (which was not the case) but television is definitely saturated. If you look solely at the general tv market, I'd agree, but if you look at web-enabled televisions, that is not the case. No manufacturer has created one that has fully captured the market for average consumers so there is room for growth there.
2) logistics of selling them in the store. I mentioned in the other thread about the SJ bio that Apple can have off site warehouses and have the TV's delivered once purchased in the store. A bit more expense, but the television isn't selling for a couple hundred dollars. Also, nobody looks forward to lugging a huge tv home in a sedan
3) bypassing cable/satellite. Who says that Apple needs to do that? It will still be a tv just with extra stuff. You can still pay the cable companies if you want but have the choice to use Netflix, iTunes, YouTube, whatever else is added. If Apple goes beyond a set top box, it can't straight up eliminate other content providers. Apple makes its mint from hardware not content.
Comments
Jobs says he cracked the 'interface'. That, a stand-alone TV does not make. Only this rumour monger said that.
I can see Siri as the interface.
Picture(pun intended) this - A simple remote like today but with a microphone and it transmits voice command to what ever device this it. This makes sense to me. NOT open mic on the box. Too much ambiant noise.
Second point - making a HDTV does not mean just go out and buy a screen. Look at all the reviews for TVs - sharpness etc, color correction ... blah blah blah. IMO - just don't think Apple would get into that. If they do, I would think from an existing brand name(Samsung... d'oh)
INSTEAD - Build Apple TV into one nice box that can control (by voice) -cable if you must, internent radio/ streaming, cloud music play lists or what ever is commanded(think start trek), mirror games from ipad etc, stream 1080p movies etc and output all this to the MONITOR and SPEAKERS. Yes very high end would be left out, but Apple tends to look for the 80%-ers.
Whos the crazy one now?(being rhetorical, don't answer that
From a TV that could be 10 or more feet away from the speaker? Speaking to my iPhone up to my ear or with headphone/mic on still has poor results with background noise. Sometimes it's some faint noise that the receiving party claims is quite loud as if I'm holding the mic up to a loudspeaker. Seems to me there is a long way to go before we can truly eliminate unwanted sounds from being processed.
And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.
I don't see the benefit of a stand-alone set. Better hookup device to replace a cable box etc yes.
Everything built into a home theatre receiver type device makes better sense to me. M'eh, I'm not 'the crazy one' though.
I understand your point but a set-top box (e.g. Apple TV) can't control the TV itself, only the signal to the TV. It would take a true Apple-built TV to integrate the two functions of signal control and TV control. This shouldn't be overlooked as a modern television is more than just a monitor with a tuner and various input ports.
And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.
"Siri, turn on the news."
"How long would you like to sleep."
"Not snooze! News!"
"Snooze news? You're not making sense."
"Turn on Channel 5."
"Whether or not you get excited by perfume has nothing to do with me."
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"
And like I pointed out above - the very worst controller would be a voice activated one that didn't work perfectly.
I was typing that up as an edit a few minutes ago. That could work. I can see people saying "Turn on Fox and Friends", "Find me reruns of M.A.S.H.", or more in line with Apple's strengths "Something funny like Seinfeld" where AppleTV Genius looks for shows that people that watch Seinfeld also watch (active data mining) or recommend (elected data mining).
Ugh…
Any Apple HDTV would have to be CHEAPER than competitors' models, and I just don't see how that'd happen and keep the usual Apple hardware flair.
And the usual Apple hardware profit margins.
Yeah, I don't see this panning out either. But let's consider what was said:
"a source close to an Asian component supplier claimed in September that Apple was building prototype models of its rumored high-definition television set."
First, of course this could be the usual BS, or even something Apple did deliberately to start false rumors to disguise true intents. Remember all the iPhone5 reports?
Second, if this IS true, it does not necessarily mean sets are being built for sale with an Apple brand. It's possible some prototypes have been built in order to demonstrate to manufacturers how the Apple-spec'd set works.
I still believe these TVs would be 'Made for AppleTV', rather than BE 'Apple TV's. I think AppleTV will continue to be an add-on box, and that 'Made for AppleTV' sets will contain parts that will tie them more closely with AppleTV boxes. The 'Made for' label will be an edge for manufacturers who adopt it, Apple will get whatever additional functionality it cannot get as a complete standalone, everyone wins.
I just do not see it as good strategy for Apple to wade into the cutthroat TV business. It's better strategy for Apple to make TV makers compete with each other using their consumer-established 'Made for' brand (somewhat like 'Intel Inside') and just keep making little black add-on boxes. It even gives Apple a foothold in outlets like Sears, where most TVs are bought: "They're loading up your new TV in the loading bay, Mr. Brown. Do you have the AppleTV box already, or should I add one on?"
No matter what brand/size/price the TV, Apple can sell a box for it, instead of competing with it. Remember, MOST TVs aren't bought by gotta-have-it gadget freaks or Apple fans, but by average people with other centers of interest. These aren't computers - they aren't even cell phones. It's something many people buy in the same place they buy a washing machine or dishwasher.
Beyond that, all of Apple products are typically priced above the competition... Selling a high quality product and once again not participating in the "race to the bottom" strategy.
Well, no. This is a whole new Apple these days. The iPad is priced below roughly equivalent products. So are most Macs, feature for feature. And AT&T GIVES iPhones away with new contracts.
Being price-conscious does not necessarily mean cutting corners.
[*]The additional cables and boxes are 'unsightly' in the broadest sense of the word.
'Made for iPod' devices usually have a place to dock an iPod. These TVs could have a slot in the back for an AppleTV allowing it to access an IR receiver (or whatever) on the front of the set. Remember, they're 'Made for AppleTV'. Problem solved.
As far as new, high-tech display technologies and so on are concerned: This is exactly why Apple should not be making the entire TV. Some people WANT such displays, but some people just want a bargain TV (especially these days). No matter what you want in a display, you should have the option of an Apple-designed set controller. Let the TV manufacturers compete over 3D, new cutting-edge display technologies, display size and style, price, plasma vs. LCD/LED/projector/whatever, speaker options and so on. Let consumers choose, and then plug in an AppleTV.
"Siri, turn on the news."
"How long would you like to sleep."
"Not snooze! News!"
"Snooze news? You're not making sense."
"Turn on Channel 5."
"Whether or not you get excited by perfume has nothing to do with me."
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"
LOL There are entire comedy routines just waiting to be hatched with services like Siri. Stephen Colbert already did one last week.
From a TV that could be 10 or more feet away from the speaker? Speaking to my iPhone up to my ear or with headphone/mic on still has poor results with background noise. Sometimes it's some faint noise that the receiving party claims is quite loud as if I'm holding the mic up to a loudspeaker. Seems to me there is a long way to go before we can truly eliminate unwanted sounds from being processed.
Random background noise is a totally different problem.
If you know what the source audio is (as an Apple HDTV would) you can subtract it from the resulting recording.
I actually think that isolating voice commands from a room where a few people are have a conversation would be harder than isolating voice commands from a single person watching a movie with the volume cranked up.
That's where things like directional microphones and face tracking come into play.
At the end of the day though you are correct. It's possible to manufacture scenarios where Siri on a TV wouldn't work.
However the same kind of problems will still exist if the iPhone was your microphone. It might be a little more reliable though.
The only fool-proof method, i think, would be to have a bunch of microphones placed around the room that your iPhone mic could tap into for some crazy multi-layered noise cancellation.
oh and maybe the Apple Remote will distinguish between devices? My MBP listens to the same one as my AppleTV, is there anyway to fix that?
System Preference settings on your MBP. Under Security/General/"disable IR remote"
oh and maybe the Apple Remote will distinguish between devices? My MBP listens to the same one as my AppleTV, is there anyway to fix that?
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
However the same kind of problems will still exist if the iPhone was your microphone. It might be a little more reliable though.
The only fool-proof method, i think, would be to have a bunch of microphones placed around the room that your iPhone mic could tap into for some crazy multi-layered noise cancellation.
1) Considering the space, the mic in the remote could be larger and better for this sort of use.
2) Mics around the room is an interesting thought. Putting them in the speakers around the room would likely do the trick. I wonder what kind of processing that would require.
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
System Preference settings on your MBP. Under Security/General/"disable IR remote"
ok thanks, will give this a go.
What's the problem? They could have you talk in your iPhone, talk in the remote, use a directional mic aimed at the room sweet spot, use a camera to detect the speaker (maybe even lip read), use a noise canceling algorithm, etc.
? this is a television.
Same prediction made about the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Nobody would buy them at that price. And we all know how those predictions panned out don't we.
No one's gonna buy a $5,000 TV anymore. That's my prediction.
No matter what brand/size/price the TV, Apple can sell a box for it, instead of competing with it.
Exactly. That's why Apple selling an HDTV is ludicrous.
It's basically the third oldest electronics market. It's PRETTY DANG SATURATED. Entering it isn't like entering the PMP market or smartphone market. TVs have been around a couple of years now.
Televisions should be dumb sticks. Sticks is a bad metaphor, but it serves the purpose. Sticks.
Your television is a stick. You want a bigger stick? Go get one on the cheap. You want a stick with sanded bark (AMOLED panel or whatever, once they get cheaper)? Go buy a stick with sanded bark.
You want to have two sticks, REALLY REALLY close together and then blurry (3D gimmick)? Go do that, too.
And then buy an Apple TV, plug it in, and know it will work with whatever stick you buy.
Ugh?
Any Apple HDTV would have to be CHEAPER than competitors' models, and I just don't see how that'd happen and keep the usual Apple hardware flair.
And the usual Apple hardware profit margins.
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
Yeah, they've been saying that.
The difference here lies in the age of the market, the mindset of what a television "is", and the fact that no one really wants to buy a $5,000 42" TV anymore.
Jobs said that the TV will have the simplest user interface you can imagine.
Well, the simplest UI I can imagine is speech.
Talking from your TV from across the room isn't the simplest thing I can imagine. All of you guys are over thinking this.
I haven't read all of the comments so forgive me if this is repetitive, but isn't this the exact same type of comments we heard about Apple entering the cell phone industry? As I recall, that has worked out rather nicely for them, has it not?
There are some major differences.
First of all, people on this type of forum we're mostly wanting to enter the smartphone market because they thought it could be a lot better and that Apple's experience and success with CE would be ideal. There were dozens upon dozens of mockups of how people envisioned the iPhone, which was named for at least a year by Apple users before the January 2007 announcement.
Second, those that didn't think Apple could succeed in the smartphone business overwhelming stated it was because the market was saturated. The argument with the TV market is that Apple can't really bring anything new to the table with a basic TV, as well as very real logistical issue with storing large TVs usually found in warehouse stores, not in a the back rooms of boutique shops.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV. Apple doesn't sell many Mac Pros yet a single Mac Pro takes up less space and makes a lot more profit than a 50" TV.
There are clearly some areas in which Apple's strengths could benefit users TV viewing, but there are so many issues at hand with cable and sat, and hard to see how Apple could bypass them or make a one-size-fits-all solution without CableCards. Look what happened with GoogleTV. Look how long it took for Apple to create an iPhone that connected to more than the highly standardized GSM/UMTS network.
Yeah, they've been saying that.
The difference here lies in the age of the market, the mindset of what a television "is", and the fact that no one really wants to buy a $5,000 42" TV anymore.
If Apple was able to absolutely control every network in the world then an Apple tv would work without question.
I don't want to be restricted to watching certain shows each week... 20 episodes over 6 months. I want to watch "some" things continuously until conclusion over a period of 2 - 3 weeks. Anyone who could arrange that would have my vote... even if I had to buy their tv (but not if it was $5000
Until then...
____________________
"Siri, which stock should I buy?"
"Are you stupid?"
I like the look of the Samsung Smart TV, but I would much rather have an Apple version.
Wow this might actually happen!
There are some major differences.
First of all, people on this type of forum we're mostly wanting to enter the smartphone market because they thought it could be a lot better and that Apple's experience and success with CE would be ideal. There were dozens upon dozens of mockups of how people envisioned the iPhone, which was named for at least a year by Apple users before the January 2007 announcement.
Second, those that didn't think Apple could succeed in the smartphone business overwhelming stated it was because the market was saturated. The argument with the TV market is that Apple can't really bring anything new to the table with a basic TV, as well as very real logistical issue with storing large TVs usually found in warehouse stores, not in a the back rooms of boutique shops.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV. Apple doesn't sell many Mac Pros yet a single Mac Pro takes up less space and makes a lot more profit than a 50" TV.
There are clearly some areas in which Apple's strengths could benefit users TV viewing, but there are so many issues at hand with cable and sat, and hard to see how Apple could bypass them or make a one-size-fits-all solution without CableCards. Look what happened with GoogleTV. Look how long it took for Apple to create an iPhone that connected to more than the highly standardized GSM/UMTS network.
I'm not completely sold on whether or not Apple will make an HDTv (even though its executives did warn that a future product would be coming up that would lower its profit margins slightly). The only thing is that much of your concerns have viable solutions.
1) you mention that some people thought that the mobile space was saturated (which was not the case) but television is definitely saturated. If you look solely at the general tv market, I'd agree, but if you look at web-enabled televisions, that is not the case. No manufacturer has created one that has fully captured the market for average consumers so there is room for growth there.
2) logistics of selling them in the store. I mentioned in the other thread about the SJ bio that Apple can have off site warehouses and have the TV's delivered once purchased in the store. A bit more expense, but the television isn't selling for a couple hundred dollars. Also, nobody looks forward to lugging a huge tv home in a sedan
3) bypassing cable/satellite. Who says that Apple needs to do that? It will still be a tv just with extra stuff. You can still pay the cable companies if you want but have the choice to use Netflix, iTunes, YouTube, whatever else is added. If Apple goes beyond a set top box, it can't straight up eliminate other content providers. Apple makes its mint from hardware not content.