Designer Jony Ive reportedly has a 50-inch Apple television in his studio

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post


    Regarding Jobs' "cracked" comment, which AI seems to paste into every story these days, I wish he had made this comment in regards to content deals. I don't think anyone is worried about the interface this rumored TV will have; it's what the interface will have access to that worries me instead.



    This is why I'm still completely skeptical about Apple making an HDTV. I have no doubt that they've been able to crack it on the hardware end. I can list off at least 10 rather huge ideas that could be game changers on the hardware and software side. I grew up working in the high end custom install industry so I've been doing makeshift automation and integration for years. I know what it would take to make all of this great.



    But here's the thing: so do a lot of people, but it has nothing to do with why nothing has really changed.



    TV all boils down to content, licensing and delivery, and that whole set of scenes is a phenominally ridiculous mess. So many different groups have competing interests and they're mostly lead by people who are afraid to move forward so as not to possibly give up any ground to new players.



    Ask anyone in Hollywood about the original Netflix licensing deals and they'll you they made a huge mistake. They gave content away too cheap because they underestimated the appeal, and now they've learned from that and watching the music industry fall apart.



    Then you have the ISP's and cable providers with their own interests and ever-growing overlap.



    Then you also have the current hardware industry shipping a ton of shit and making little to no money if they're not simply losing money. Only LG seems to be making any legitimately interesting (though entirely minimal and inconsequential) advancements in control and connectivity. Sony's a joke. Samsung's are just not very good even on the high end. Panasonic makes the best bang for your buck sets but most consumers are still scared of plasma's because they've heard too many outdated or simply untrue horror stories. But bottom line, none of them are having a lot of success selling TV's right now. The margins are too slim, and except to the trained eye, the differences in quality between HDTV's is too subtle for most to justify the price of higher end sets.



    The only way Apple makes this work is through amazing advancements in control, connectivity and content delivery. It doesn't all need to be streaming, but they need to be able to control any cable box (very, very possible and potentially very elegant with the right software/hardware combo). The TV's really ought to have Blu-Ray built in for the next 5 or so years as physical media is still too prevelant in the world and the best way to eliminate the complexity of controlling it is to simply integrate it. The HDMI inputs are still necessary for a few years too and need to be able to be configured to exist as sections like on the current Apple TV. If you have an X-Box, you set it up on an input and label it as such and you can access it as simply as you access anything on the current Apple TV main screen. Siri won't be as big of a player here as some think. It'll be an option but it's not even half the battle as too often it won't make sense to use. Perhaps you'd even have customized settings for various gaming systems, cable boxes, etc.



    But all this begs the question of why Apple really needs to have this integrated into an actual HDTV at all. In many ways, it makes far more sense for Apple to market an Apple TV with Blu-Ray drive and HDMI inputs that pairs up with a wi-fi HDMI adapter for the TV. You could shove all your crap in a closet, plug it all into the Appel TV box that will then manage it and wirelessly stream the video (and audio unless routed to separate sound system) signal to the TV, any TV. Have a little IR transmitter prism you stick in the front corner in front of all the sources to then control them (specifically the cable box) via Apple's software.



    An advanced Apple TV box priced around $199 makes a lot more sense to me than trying to market a full on HDTV. However, I could easily see them offering a $799 42" and $999 50" pair of HDTV monitors with integrated wireless transfer capabilities to communicate with the Apple TV box. The industrial design, panel quality and built-in wireless compatibility with Apple TV combined with very reasonable price points would be very successful. Afterall, the hardware in the Apple TV box is what is going to change far more than the actual display panel, and it'll a lot easier to sell people on upgrading a connectivity box every year or two over an entire TV. No one but ultra nerds like me buy new TV's every year or two.



    Anything else they could do likely just won't be possible until the content providers wake up and the ISP's and cable operators get reigned in. That's just not going to happen soon. Again, I have no doubt that Steve Jobs cracked the simple TV code, but I think he was just as serious a year or so ago when he said it simply was too difficult of an industry to crack right now with all the competing industries. More than anything, the success of this venture has very little to do with software or hardware.
  • Reply 82 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    They must have some kind of policy on handling of old prototypes. They probably have many of them given prototyping phases. It's just not possible to gauge everything perfectly before seeing a physical model.







    Owning that many televisions would drive me crazy. I don't like to watch too much of it.







    I'm not sure how many companies actually make panels in such a resolution. Everything I've read aside from rumors on this site would suggest that those are still a few years away.







    I'm pretty sure LED became big for cost reasons and the ability to make slender displays. I recall hearing that they provided superior backlight uniformity, so that could be another reason, as uniformity has always been a significant issue with LCD displays.



    Seems to me that there is no consumer interest in "slender displays". Who among us care if their set is half-an-inch thick or three quarters of an inch, an inch or whatever. I watch my TVs head on, not from the side. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Once the set is mounted, who cares how thick the monitor is exactly. Surely it's just a marketing thing because they didn't know what else to stress. The thing is, while LED edge-lighting produces a thinner display, a full array LED approach produces a better picture at the expense of thinness. Uniformity is better with a full array approach as well. The bad news is that so far, full-array LED is far more expensive. Hopefully that will soon change. It is highly likely to considering it used to cost extra to get 1080p and now it's pretty much automatic with the larger screen sizes. It's pretty much down to economy of scale. if production of full-array ramps up, the cost per unit will go way down.
  • Reply 83 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post




    I'm pretty sure LED became big for cost reasons and the ability to make slender displays. I recall hearing that they provided superior backlight uniformity, so that could be another reason, as uniformity has always been a significant issue with LCD displays.



    Slender has a lot to do with it as it was a marketing angle, but much of the hype around LED is necessary because plasma has a tainted reputation and they needed something to help sell more expensive (higher margin) TV's. They were specific in branding these as LED's to differentiate them from LCD's despite the fact that it's still an LCD panel that's now LED backlit. It definitely is an improvement over traditional LCD backlighting, but to most viewers, it's a difference that's not very noticeable when viewing even Blu-Ray content. That's why the marketing push centered around them being "thinner" and "more energy efficient." People can see thin and delude themselves into thinking it's important when it isn't very important in most people's configurations and the energy efficiency thing just goes along with the whole green trend. I'm not saying it's all smoke and mirrors at all; I'd take an LED-LCD over an LCD any day, but plasma's are still cheaper, better looking and in many cases quite thin (new Panasonic G-series TV's are basically LED-thin now).
  • Reply 84 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post


    Seems to me that there is no consumer interest in "slender displays". Who among us care if their set is half-an-inch thick or three quarters of an inch, an inch or whatever. I watch my TVs head on, not from the side. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Once the set is mounted, who cares how thick the monitor is exactly. Surely it's just a marketing thing because they didn't know what else to stress. The thing is, while LED edge-lighting produces a thinner display, a full array LED approach produces a better picture at the expense of thinness. Uniformity is better with a full array approach as well. The bad news is that so far, full-array LED is far more expensive. Hopefully that will soon change. It is highly likely to considering it used to cost extra to get 1080p and now it's pretty much automatic with the larger screen sizes. It's pretty much down to economy of scale. if production of full-array ramps up, the cost per unit will go way down.



    Exactly. To 95% of consumers, there's little difference in HD picture quality between Pioneer's Elite Plasmas of the last few years and a cheap POS Dynex from hell, I mean Best Buy. But they see thin in the store and remember the days of owning huge tube TV's or giant rear-projection TV's or not being able to own bigger sets because of this and immediately they fall in love. It's pure manipulation of people's initial emotional response. Once the TV's are home and settled on a wall or a stand, no one notices. You don't watch a TV from the side, and even when mounting, most people at least wants tilting mount which automatically adds to the depth. Once you're slimmer than 6", it doesn't much matter in the home.
  • Reply 85 of 125
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gcom006 View Post


    I have taken many Panasonic plasma's and paired them only with Apple TV's. The Apple TV is on those hokey "green" surge protectors and only turns on when the TV turns on. So when I turn on the Panny, I see a nice little Apple logo first thing. It's like having an Apple HDTV. It serves all my purposes sans live sports. And as said, I prefer plasma any day of the week over any LED. I have all of my TV's calibrated and they end up looking outstanding and far more natural than any LED I've seen. You still can't beat the black levels, color and smooth motion of a plasma, and nowadays they use a lot less power and are much thinner as well. Burn in isn't really an issue anymore either unless they're straight up abused.



    But anyways, I hope no matter what they do with an actual HDTV, they continue to support the Apple TV box as I highly doubt Apple will put out a projector for my home theater. I'm fine with 42" in the bedrooms and offices, and 50" is more than adequate for a family room.



    I'm with you 100%, but you forgot to mention the still superior viewing angles of plasma. I hate the way the color washes out on an LCD TV if you aren't sitting straight up, perfectly centered. I also hate how long an LCD takes to "warm up" to full illuminosity, but I believe that's no longer the case for LED-backlit LCDs. Still, plasma is superior and costs significantly less.



    I too hope whatever features/content deals the iTV includes find their way to the Apple TV as well. You should be able to get the experience either via the set-top box or by buying the whole iTV.
  • Reply 86 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bradleysm View Post


    I hope they also incorporate the same ideas and tech into an upgraded AppleTV box, because I already have a beautiful, functional, huge television. I'm not looking for another one, and I suspect a lot of people are in the same condition.



    May surprise you, but Apple is not building a TV only for you and your needs. Every weekend thousands of people buy a new HDTV and some of them will want to try a nice new Apple HDTV. Just as many buy a new 3D HDTV every week.
  • Reply 87 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasonfj View Post


    Would be LED surely....? LCDs are living room fatties these days.



    I've got news for you: "LEDs" as available today are really nothing more that LCDs with some slightly deceptive product descriptions and advertising thrown in....



    Add: I should have reasonably guessed that, by the time I got into this thread, someone had already pointed this out (as they did)!
  • Reply 88 of 125
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    I wonder if he really has a 50" Apple TV or simply a 50" TV connected to an AppleTV.
  • Reply 89 of 125
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    My question to all is the following- would you buy an apple tv if:



    -55" 1080p LED 240hz (or whatever size/plasma)

    -Built in Blu-Ray on side (like iMac)

    -Cable box built-in (or cable card slot)

    -Wifi for streaming (either to cable or iTunes)

    -Built in Apple TV that supported some apps (Weather, stocks, pandora, twitter w/ Siri, iMessage w/ siri etc)

    -Small Hard Drive for DVR

    -One remote w/ a handful of buttons and a microphone (hold down the "Siri" button and say "play Adele", "record breaking bad this Tuesday" "when does mad men come on again" "change channel to CBS" "Play Blu-ray" "show longest cry ever on youtube" etc)

    -Insanely easy user interface with beautiful guide and w/ Siri, extremely easy channel/content surfing.

    -$500 more than a comparable sized/resolution TV



    I know that everyone is talking about content, content, content, but this could be done easily this year. The advantage is simplicity, UI, elegance.

    They could also offer an apple tv 3 that would have 1080p streaming, Siri remote, and the apps for a small cost that could hook up to any tv but still keep the ecosystem going, but the all in one appeal is there as the upsell.



    Thoughts? Content is too hard of a nut to crack- cable, networks, Internet infrastructure, sports, etc. What about just a kickass tv?
  • Reply 90 of 125
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    Content is too hard of a nut to crack- cable, networks, Internet infrastructure, sports, etc.



    And that's exactly why they're going to do it.



    Apple doesn't settle for "just".
  • Reply 91 of 125
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    My question to all is the following- would you buy an apple tv if...



    I already have a TV which is already hooked up to an AppleTV. Since it doesn't need replacing, the odds of me buying a new integrated Apple TV is very low indeed.



    If they release the AppleTV3 with new features I'd buy that but there is a big difference between a small black box that costs $99 and buying a new TV (especially if we are talking about a high end model with a high end price tag).



    This is the biggest difficulty companies have selling TVs. Unless a TV stops working or there is a massive technology change (such as CRT to Flat panel), people don't tend to replace TVs.
  • Reply 92 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


    I think what's missing here is the User-Interface. The current ATV interface is OK, but to really use it well you need an iDevice (typing, gaming, web mirroring, etc...) So to answer your question, it will be some amazingly simple user-interface that will separate this HDTV from the current STB. Then you can start to take command of your whole network and household through the TV.



    My personal wish would be for the rumored TV to have ATV + Time Capsule + iOS (meaning user downloadable apps) and instant mirroring of any iDevice or Mac in your house...then add a super simple UI to that which will = Apple HDTV. Think about it as your home server for all content. Now add a subscription service for A-la-carte TV channels (as rumored) and you could finally cut the cord on cable TV.



    Maybe the key word here is 'server' eh?
  • Reply 93 of 125
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post


    Seems to me that there is no consumer interest in "slender displays". Who among us care if their set is half-an-inch thick or three quarters of an inch, an inch or whatever. I watch my TVs head on, not from the side. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Once the set is mounted, who cares how thick the monitor is exactly. Surely it's just a marketing thing because they didn't know what else to stress. The thing is, while LED edge-lighting produces a thinner display, a full array LED approach produces a better picture at the expense of thinness. Uniformity is better with a full array approach as well. The bad news is that so far, full-array LED is far more expensive. Hopefully that will soon change. It is highly likely to considering it used to cost extra to get 1080p and now it's pretty much automatic with the larger screen sizes. It's pretty much down to economy of scale. if production of full-array ramps up, the cost per unit will go way down.



    I know it's marketing. They did the same thing with the imac. It didn't increase the available desk space. It simply made the insider hotter, and in some models added fan noise (bigger fans can run at a lower rpm). People are still speculating on a thinner imac even today. I don't think they understand thermodynamics.



    By full array LED do you mean that tri colored LED backlight design that Samsung and NEC have used in the past or LEDs replacing LCD displays?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gcom006 View Post


    Slender has a lot to do with it as it was a marketing angle, but much of the hype around LED is necessary because plasma has a tainted reputation and they needed something to help sell more expensive (higher margin) TV's. They were specific in branding these as LED's to differentiate them from LCD's despite the fact that it's still an LCD panel that's now LED backlit. It definitely is an improvement over traditional LCD backlighting, but to most viewers, it's a difference that's not very noticeable when viewing even Blu-Ray content. That's why the marketing push centered around them being "thinner" and "more energy efficient." People can see thin and delude themselves into thinking it's important when it isn't very important in most people's configurations and the energy efficiency thing just goes along with the whole green trend. I'm not saying it's all smoke and mirrors at all; I'd take an LED-LCD over an LCD any day, but plasma's are still cheaper, better looking and in many cases quite thin (new Panasonic G-series TV's are basically LED-thin now).



    LED has been partially marketing hype in general. It has some advantages, but it's been used as a buzz word in marketing. Many of the best computer displays including newer designs still use CCFL for color reproduction reasons. The uniformity issue on those is often corrected via panel blocking algorithms. On displays not intended for color grading purposes, LED backlighting does seem to offer superior uniformity. With cheaper CCFL displays, they always looked extremely uneven.
  • Reply 94 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobringer View Post


    Sigh...



    LED's *ARE* LCD's.



    The difference is whether or not the LCD is fluorescent backlit or LED backlit. There is no way Apple will release a non LED backlit TV. The iMac I'm staring at right now is an LCD. And it is LED backlit.



    Exactly what I wanted to say. A lot of people are under the misconception that LED TVs mean that it is LEDs that do the display.
  • Reply 95 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post






    Something like this, but much, much bigger - and sexier.



    Here's the link: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Is...icDisplays.asp



    I dunno - the chick seems big enough for me - I can't see all the assets though. But I agree, we could use something sexier.



    EDIT: Oops! TBell beat me to it!
  • Reply 96 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I know it's marketing. They did the same thing with the imac. It didn't increase the available desk space. It simply made the insider hotter, and in some models added fan noise (bigger fans can run at a lower rpm). People are still speculating on a thinner imac even today. I don't think they understand thermodynamics.



    By full array LED do you mean that tri colored LED backlight design that Samsung and NEC have used in the past or LEDs replacing LCD displays?









    LED has been partially marketing hype in general. It has some advantages, but it's been used as a buzz word in marketing. Many of the best computer displays including newer designs still use CCFL for color reproduction reasons. The uniformity issue on those is often corrected via panel blocking algorithms. On displays not intended for color grading purposes, LED backlighting does seem to offer superior uniformity. With cheaper CCFL displays, they always looked extremely uneven.



    As far as I know, there is no such thing as an LED display that is different technology than an LCD. The LEDs are used for backlighting in place of CCFLs. What I'm referring to is the superior performance of LEDs employed in a costlier set-up currently found in more expensive sets vs. edge-lit LED set-ups that produce an inferior picture, though not dramatically so. When marketing edge-lit LED sets (still a type of LCD), the stress is on a thinness that, really, I believe no one cares about, not really. If you asked a consumer if he or she would rather superior performance or a fraction of thickness taken out of their display, I have a hard time imagining anyone opting for thinness. Once a monitor is set up that additional thinness doesn't even contribute to a TV's visual appeal. It's a selling point that I just don't understand.
  • Reply 97 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    I don't believe the tv will be a traditional tv. I have a feeling that social networking will be the big selling feature ala FaceTime/iChat - the tv will have a camera.

    Why watch Family Feud when you can play it against your extended family and create your own entertainment.

    Selecting your own 'subscription' packages is hardly "cracking" tv as stated by Jobs.



    If this prediction were true - then the question would be; do consumers want a tv with a camera on it? It would have fun applications, but also leave the door wide open for massive privacy abuse like smart phones and Facebook currently do.



    Social Networking as the center piece of a TELEVISION SET?



    Are you joking? Perhaps you'd like to join Eric Schmidt and his brilliant idea that the main feature of a Google TV was have internet access. Clearly everyone NEEDS to check on Twitter on a 50" screen
  • Reply 98 of 125
    kovichkovich Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Please don't tease the British. They're already sensitive about losing their empire, the colonies, that tea party in Boston, their language and spelling being revised by Americans, etc.



    My experience of the British is that they are rather proud of the US, considering it to be one of their more succesful IPOs. Also the American spelling is in fact the original English spelling.
  • Reply 99 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    I think the TV area is one where people pay more attention to cost. If a 50" Apple HDTV goes for the price of an 70" LED 3D TV, that isn't going to sell well.



    This will only be true unless it has you can only get it here licsensing deals.



    If apple can provide you with al a carte channels for a third of what your cable company charges it will be awesome. I would gladly pay 5-7 hundred dollars more for a tv that I don't have to pay the cable company 200 dollars a month for content.
  • Reply 100 of 125
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    ...

    a huge number of people under 40 or so don't watch cable TV at all and don't have a giant wall of DVDs or BluRays like the over 50's tend to have. ...



    While I think that might be a desirable situation, I've seen no evidence that it might be accurate. Is there anything other than anecdotal evidence that cable access is less important than indoor plumbing to any segment of the population? I enjoy using a little Roku device because it connects to a (shudder, horrors) analogue TV. But the superior interface to Plex on my iPad suggests to me that I would significantly prefer an Apple TV box which I plan to purchase soon and connect to an LCD monitor.



    How Apple plans to detour around broadcast and cable TV incumbents for the mass market remains the big mystery. Saying they don't have to do so seems like an unlikely answer.
Sign In or Register to comment.