I think Google TV might end up as the standard for Smart TV and I'm not so sure what Apple can do about it.
Apple's best bet at this point may be just focusing on the "Apple TV" add-on box and maybe some kind of standard that allows it to hijack the TV it is connected to.
Another option would be opening up some of their iOS features (like AirPlay, Facetime, iMessage etc) so these can be added into new smart TVs.
It's a bit simplistic to say "Apple, therefore competitors innovate." Apple's successes may be a motivation, but being innovative isn't something as simple as waiting to be motivated. It's something you either get or don't get. Innovation isn't something we're taught in schools. It's an interesting topic in and of itself, but simply being motivated to be innovative doesn't make one innovative.
If you subscribe to basic cable and have no additional components such as Blu-ray, DVR, or video game connected to your TV set, then I agree. OTOH, if you are like most people in the First World who live indoors and have multiple home entertainment components connected to their TV sets, then TV sucks big time.
Let us begin with the multiplicity of remote control handsets. If you believe that a universal remote eliminates the need to keep track of all of the individual remotes, then you learn that certain essential features of each individual remote are unsupported on each universal remote. The best control set of any component in your living room is the control set of your TV. However, the your cable company wants to transfer control from your TV set to its set top box. The Federal Government mandated that the cable companies offer a device that allows you to access all programming without the STB. In cooperation with TV set manufacturers, they developed CableCard. Unfortunately CableCard is not supported by manufacturers on many of their sets and the cable providers drag their feet about offering it to customers with CableCard-compatible TV sets.
So yeah, I would say that TV sucks.
Ok, I agree with the problems, but it's not the TV's fault. Put another way, how would an Apple TV solve any of that? Unless Apple starts making their own game consoles, blu-ray players, and builds their own cable network, you are still going to have those same issues with an Apple device...multiple remotes, switching sources, crappy CableCards.
I agree that the TV experience sucks, but that has more to do with the sources of content. Could Apple flex it's muscle and get some sort of licensing agreements with the content providers which would then allow them to integrate it into an AppleTV? Sure. But you shouldn't need a TV from Apple, only an AppleTV box to connect to your TV. And if that content offering isn't robust enough, you'll still have to deal wtih the cable company and their CableCards. And you'll still need to have a way to switch sources when you want to play your blu-ray disc because you know there is no way Apple will make a blu-ray player. I guarantee I can switch inputs on my current TV faster than you'd ever be able to on an Apple minimalist remote, digging down into menus to find the Sources list.
I'm sure Apple could make some improvements, and they can certainly make it prettier. But I struggle with how they can solve the issues you listed unless they start making all those devices and offering all those services themselves.
In all of the rumors about this fabled TV from Apple, nobody has dared even guess at what it's features might be that would make it another must-have device from Apple. And there is certainly nothing that couldn't be integrated into Apple's set-up AppleTV, not requiring us to purchase whole new TVs to use.
Basically, it will be AppleTV integrated into a flat-screen television with the primary connection intended the internet (WiFi or ethernet). Obviously, you will still be able to connect directly to a cable box, but that is not what Apple wants. Apple has said the AppleTV is a hobby device, which means it is more of a beta/test/plqce-holder product than an actual product. Now that their data center is active and iCloud is up-and-running, Apple can get serious and turn the AppleTV into an Apple TV.
So you're flopped on the couch, Cheetos? crumbs down your front, only wearing boxers (applies to both genders), when you suddenly get a video call from your cousin on the top of the Eiffel Tower, showing you the view. Or just someone you know in any location for any reason.
And you'd feel like what?
I don't think any TV needs a webcam.
Quote:
3 - iCloud integration
4 - WiFi in addition to Ethernet port.
5 - AirPlay support.
Givens.
Quote:
Basically, it will be AppleTV integrated into a flat-screen television with the primary connection intended the internet (WiFi or ethernet).
How's this better than me being allowed to use whatever TV I want that has whatever quality panel I want and plug in an Apple TV?
Quote:
Apple has said the AppleTV is a hobby device, which means it is more of a beta/test/plqce-holder product than an actual product.
Count me in with the group that thinks Steve Jobs' comments were misdirection.
It seems so unlikely to me that Apple would get into the game of producing TVs when it seems most of the interesting stuff could be contained to a set-top box. The screen is just a big monitor, reflecting whatever is being fed into it. What's to innovate there? With TVs, the interesting stuff is the content and the systems you can connect to it, not the hardware. It's a big flat screen. Who cares what company makes it?
All the pieces are already here. All the Apple television is, is a high resolution (4k) monitor with the current little $99 Apple TV box contents embedded inside (and upgraded from iOS 4.x to 6.0). Nothing radical. How can people not see this?
I don't see Apple producing a TV ever. If they DO, I don't see them settling for anything less than Super Hi-Vision. And then they wouldn't have to an upgrade ever, because nothing higher than SHV can ever be resolved by the human eye.
Quote:
It'll play iTunes content (tv & movies).
HAH AHA H AH AH A HA HA H AH 720p HAHA HA HA HA HA H AH AH AH
Frigging horribly-converted 720p, at that.
Quote:
It'll play iTunes content whenever you want.
Oh yeah. THIS is the future of TV. ONLY what you want and whenever you want it.
Quote:
It'll play iTunes/iOS apps & games.
Eh, no. They don't really work for that.
Quote:
Siri. Or iPad or iPhone.
HEY. TV. *loud sounds* GO TO THE OTHER SHOW *continued loud sounds* HEY, ah screw it, I'll just use my iPad like a sane person would.
All the pieces are already here. All the Apple television is, is a high resolution (4k) monitor with the current little $99 Apple TV box contents embedded inside (and upgraded from iOS 4.x to 6.0). Nothing radical.
Quote:
How can people not see this?
"Maybe I just want the little box? I'll choose whatever panel I want since Apple doesn't often choose the right ones. Oh, and I own a TV already. Several, in fact. As does everyone else in the country. I'm not spending thousands when I could just spend $200."
Siri currently only does speech recognition. What if it did voice recognition? Only your voice would control your tv.
All right, are there any voice recognition companies that actually work these days? I'm talking the same level of quality that Nuance brings to speech recognition.
Also, we seem to be ignoring the big thing. Maybe I don't want my television perpetually connected to the Internet for Siri. Unless Apple is willing to load it up with all the software required for Siri processing?
Of course, I still don't buy the whole 'making a television' bit.
All right, are there any voice recognition companies that actually work these days? I'm talking the same level of quality that Nuance brings to speech recognition.
Also, we seem to be ignoring the big thing. Maybe I don't want my television perpetually connected to the Internet for Siri. Unless Apple is willing to load it up with all the software required for Siri processing?
Of course, I still don't buy the whole 'making a television' bit.
Remember Apple took that charge a while back for investing in "display technology"? 4k fits perfectly into the timeline.
Apple TVs have been hack to run arbitrary iOS apps recently. Did you read about how all of Apple's apps displayed fine on a tv monitor?
Siri's still in beta--what is Apple holding back? Voice recognition.
Of course, they heard a rumor, decided to make a TV, did much research, created a concept, built the concept, created the final product, all of this in a few months just to face a non-existing Apple television... Give me a break.
Of course, they heard a rumor, decided to make a TV, did much research, created a concept, built the concept, created the final product, all of this in a few months just to face a non-existing Apple television... Give me a break.
Of course not. They have no idea what Apple is actually going to do, so all they did was release exactly what they were going to release anyway.
Since they were asked about the competition, they commented on it.
What, you expected them to say, "We're terrified of what Apple's going to release. Even if they don't release a television to compete, if they do release SOMETHING, it's going to be leagues better than anything we have. We have absolutely no clue what they're doing, but history shows that they always do things that no one ever expects and it takes us years to catch up."? Come off it. They have to give the standard line, "We're not worried; anything they can do will just be what we've been doing for years; they're nothing special", etc.
CES is more about presenting future flops than successes
It's called the Concept Electronics Show isn't it?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QRM
As for the current, incessant rumour of an Apple-branded TV, I simply cannot conceive of what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) might introduce to drive me to replace a relatively new 1080p 40" set which, given the manner in which cable works here, is used as no more than a large monitor anyway. I don't need a new TV...I need a replacement for the cable box!
...but I simply cannot understand why Apple would want to enter the TV market...
Well of course the 'boxes' vary too much around the world for Apple to easily address this area. The SmartTV is the area Apple can go...
I don't know what brand of tv (display) you have but everyone I've ever seen/used lags horribly when using the UI. Apple has clear strengths in UI and that alone on just the display part is massively appealing to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin
Apple comes out with 4k resolution TV.
What about the lack of 4k broadcast?
It'll play iTunes content (tv & movies).
What about time shifting with a DVR?
It'll play iTunes content whenever you want.
What about gaming?
It'll play iTunes/iOS apps & games.
What about a universal remote?
Siri. Or iPad or iPhone.
No way will it be 4k for many many years, there's precious few 1080p broadcasts at the moment and we're not exactly flush with RF bandwidth for such channels. You can't make more bandwidth, only explorer better technologies to use the RFs you have.
Alternatively who would pay for the trunk and local loop infrastructure to support even 1080p streaming? Parts of the UK have no broadband and there are a vast number of ISPs offering only a few GB download limits per month even SD ITVplayer/iPlayer/4OD isnt feasible for all.
iOS apps make no sense on a TV. iOS apps lever sensors such as gps, gyro etc, multitouch input and often just snippets of data on small displays. An Apple TV would support AirPlay of course but running current iOS software wouldn't work. There's no reason why it could have specify apps.
This article looks rather empty. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but it is missing. Maybe a quote from a book. But when I read an article in AI about TVs I subconsciously know that the article is complete.
I'll let you know when I crack it.
Jokes aside, I think that unless Apple got content deals it is going to try to replace the set top box. I imagine a TV where you just connect the cable and the apple tv set it in a beautiful interface.
January 9, 2012 was the 5th Anniversary of the introduction of the iPhone. This device revolutionized the cell phone. There were those who felt that an Apple phone required Apple to rent bandwidth and establish its own cellular networks. However, Apple's iPhone worked with its partners' existing 2G GSM cell networks with their addition of Visual Voicemail. Apple works well with others.
Consider the differences between our expectations of cell phones prior to January 9, 2007 and after January 9, 2007. It is truly amazing to me that so many people seem to have learned nothing from Apple's impact on the cell phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Ok, I agree with the problems, but it's not the TV's fault. Put another way, how would an Apple TV solve any of that? Unless Apple starts making their own game consoles, blu-ray players, and builds their own cable network, you are still going to have those same issues with an Apple device...multiple remotes, switching sources, crappy CableCards.
TV sets are inanimate objects. They have no responsibility for anything. They are at fault for nothing. The fault with TV sets lies with their designers.
When the iPhone went on sale, Apple also sold its own Bluetooth headset. However, third-party headsets also worked with the iPhone. Apple no longer makes its own headsets. However, you may still pair your third-party headset with your iPhone. There is no need for the owner to make the choice between his/her X-Box or Wii and Apple HDTV. Such a choice would be a lost Apple sale for many potential customers. The same goes for Blu-ray players, DVDs, cable set top box, and such like.
The solution is iOS and iOS-based devices. Of course, an Apple HDTV would be iOS-based. Its remote control would also be iOS-based. It could be the ultimate universal remote. As I write this, anyone can go to the iTunes Music Store and download emulator apps for any of numerous remote control for various devices. Among the devices supported by the remote control emulators available on the iTMS is the Google TV.
Get you brain around this--any Google TV owner can use his iPhone as the Google TV remote control--today! In its present state, the iPhone is more functional than any other universal remote on the market. To make the iPhone the ultimate remote control, however, it has to do more than simply control every device in your entertainment center. I envision a wrapper app that integrates and unifies all of the device-specific remote control emulators while preserving all functions of each.
There are additional issues that I will address below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I agree that the TV experience sucks, but that has more to do with the sources of content. Could Apple flex it's muscle and get some sort of licensing agreements with the content providers which would then allow them to integrate it into an AppleTV? Sure. But you shouldn't need a TV from Apple, only an AppleTV box to connect to your TV.
OK. The problem with TV is not lack of content. If you live in or near a large metropolitan area, you may have upwards of 50 program streams over the air. Your cable TV franchise may provide over 1000 channels. You have Internet services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu+, Pandora, and Apple's own iTunes.
There is no lack-of-content problem, there is a content management problem. We are still operating on a paradigm that was developed when all but the largest cities had only three channels. Cable companies manage their programming using a paradigm that ran out of steam when they exceeded 20 channels on their systems.
The notion that Apple will flex its muscles with cable providers is a pipe dream. With the possible exception of Florida where Bright House has franchises that cover several counties, cable providers are very fractured with separate franchise agreements with each local government. Your neighbors across the street may have a different cable company than you. Even if they have the same cable company, they may have a different mix of channels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
And if that content offering isn't robust enough, you'll still have to deal wtih the cable company and their CableCards.
None of my TVs support CableCard, so that I have no idea whether it sucks or not. Assuming that you are correct, I am reminded of an important fact. USB existed before Apple supported it on the original iMac. However, it floundered because it sucked. Many people today believe that Apple was the first computer manufacturer to support USB because it had the first USB implementation that did not suck.
BTW, the US Federal Government mandated that the cable providers provide CableCard-like functionality--the ability to tune all available channels without a separate set top box. CableCard is the implementation of the Federal mandate that the providers worked out with TV set manufacturers. It might be interesting if Apple could persuade one or more cable providers to support a firmware-based equivalent of CableCard with downloadable firmware instead of the removable PCMCIA card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
And you'll still need to have a way to switch sources when you want to play your blu-ray disc because you know there is no way Apple will make a blu-ray player. I guarantee I can switch inputs on my current TV faster than you'd ever be able to on an Apple minimalist remote, digging down into menus to find the Sources list.
Virtually every TV sold has a remote control that includes switching among sources as a standard function. I have already explained that Apple's remote will be an iOS device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I'm sure Apple could make some improvements, and they can certainly make it prettier. But I struggle with how they can solve the issues you listed unless they start making all those devices and offering all those services themselves.
Apple has been around since 1976. The Macintosh has been around since 1984-1983 if you count the Lisa. MacOS X has been around since 2001. The iPhone has been around since 2007. In 2012, you trot out that old saw, "Apple=pretty." It is as though you have learned nothing.
To the larger point, however, engineering is the art and science of the possible. Apple does a remarkable job of pushing the envelope of the possible. Apple's aesthetics go hand in glove with its engineering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
In all of the rumors about this fabled TV from Apple, nobody has dared even guess at what it's features might be that would make it another must-have device from Apple. And there is certainly nothing that couldn't be integrated into Apple's set-up AppleTV, not requiring us to purchase whole new TVs to use.
I have already expressed my opinion about an iOS-based universal remote. Everything that I have stated up to this point, however, should work with any TV set, not just one from Apple.
What additional features would an Apple HDTV support? Communication between every TV now on the market and its remote control is one-way. An Apple HDTV could feature two-way communication:
Paired Apple HDTV and iOS-based remote control. Today, virtually any remote control can control virtually any TV of the same brand. This would be a disaster in a room where everyone has his/her own iPhone. An Apple HDTV could have the ability to pair via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi with only certain specific iOS devices. I use my iPhone to control my TV, but my brother can't use his iPhone.
Preview-based program selection. I purchased a Samsung digital OTA tuner back in 2004. The tuner creates a program guide by aggregating the PSIP streams from each subchannel. The tuner also creates a little preview video icon of each current program stream. The Apple HDTV could create similar preview icon of each available program stream irrespective of source. The TV could display the icons on its screen on command. It would also transmit the previews to the iOS-based remote control. Touching the preview icon on the remote changes the TV set to that program.
Siri. The default Siri control would be through the iOS device that is used as the remote. Shouting at the TV is unnecessary. Because only paired devices may control the TV set, the viewer is assured that his/her program will not be interrupted by unauthorized individuals.
It is important not to sacrifice any existing TV functionality just because the TV has the bitten Apple logo. Everything that I have written is based on currently available technology or evolutionary logical next steps from current technology.
Comments
Apple's best bet at this point may be just focusing on the "Apple TV" add-on box and maybe some kind of standard that allows it to hijack the TV it is connected to.
Another option would be opening up some of their iOS features (like AirPlay, Facetime, iMessage etc) so these can be added into new smart TVs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3y7O_TOew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQfNm..._order&list=UL
CES is more about presenting future flops than successes
history would see to agree with you on the whole :-)
as for apple in the tv space i don't see it..
It's fun to watch Apple force people to innovate.
It's a bit simplistic to say "Apple, therefore competitors innovate." Apple's successes may be a motivation, but being innovative isn't something as simple as waiting to be motivated. It's something you either get or don't get. Innovation isn't something we're taught in schools. It's an interesting topic in and of itself, but simply being motivated to be innovative doesn't make one innovative.
Sony thinking? That's an oxymoron.
If you subscribe to basic cable and have no additional components such as Blu-ray, DVR, or video game connected to your TV set, then I agree. OTOH, if you are like most people in the First World who live indoors and have multiple home entertainment components connected to their TV sets, then TV sucks big time.
Let us begin with the multiplicity of remote control handsets. If you believe that a universal remote eliminates the need to keep track of all of the individual remotes, then you learn that certain essential features of each individual remote are unsupported on each universal remote. The best control set of any component in your living room is the control set of your TV. However, the your cable company wants to transfer control from your TV set to its set top box. The Federal Government mandated that the cable companies offer a device that allows you to access all programming without the STB. In cooperation with TV set manufacturers, they developed CableCard. Unfortunately CableCard is not supported by manufacturers on many of their sets and the cable providers drag their feet about offering it to customers with CableCard-compatible TV sets.
So yeah, I would say that TV sucks.
Ok, I agree with the problems, but it's not the TV's fault. Put another way, how would an Apple TV solve any of that? Unless Apple starts making their own game consoles, blu-ray players, and builds their own cable network, you are still going to have those same issues with an Apple device...multiple remotes, switching sources, crappy CableCards.
I agree that the TV experience sucks, but that has more to do with the sources of content. Could Apple flex it's muscle and get some sort of licensing agreements with the content providers which would then allow them to integrate it into an AppleTV? Sure. But you shouldn't need a TV from Apple, only an AppleTV box to connect to your TV. And if that content offering isn't robust enough, you'll still have to deal wtih the cable company and their CableCards. And you'll still need to have a way to switch sources when you want to play your blu-ray disc because you know there is no way Apple will make a blu-ray player. I guarantee I can switch inputs on my current TV faster than you'd ever be able to on an Apple minimalist remote, digging down into menus to find the Sources list.
I'm sure Apple could make some improvements, and they can certainly make it prettier. But I struggle with how they can solve the issues you listed unless they start making all those devices and offering all those services themselves.
In all of the rumors about this fabled TV from Apple, nobody has dared even guess at what it's features might be that would make it another must-have device from Apple. And there is certainly nothing that couldn't be integrated into Apple's set-up AppleTV, not requiring us to purchase whole new TVs to use.
2 - iSight camera for FaceTime
3 - iCloud integration
4 - WiFi in addition to Ethernet port.
5 - AirPlay support.
Basically, it will be AppleTV integrated into a flat-screen television with the primary connection intended the internet (WiFi or ethernet). Obviously, you will still be able to connect directly to a cable box, but that is not what Apple wants. Apple has said the AppleTV is a hobby device, which means it is more of a beta/test/plqce-holder product than an actual product. Now that their data center is active and iCloud is up-and-running, Apple can get serious and turn the AppleTV into an Apple TV.
1 - Stores (iTunes, iOS apps)
Given.
2 - iSight camera for FaceTime
So you're flopped on the couch, Cheetos? crumbs down your front, only wearing boxers (applies to both genders), when you suddenly get a video call from your cousin on the top of the Eiffel Tower, showing you the view. Or just someone you know in any location for any reason.
And you'd feel like what?
I don't think any TV needs a webcam.
3 - iCloud integration
4 - WiFi in addition to Ethernet port.
5 - AirPlay support.
Givens.
Basically, it will be AppleTV integrated into a flat-screen television with the primary connection intended the internet (WiFi or ethernet).
How's this better than me being allowed to use whatever TV I want that has whatever quality panel I want and plug in an Apple TV?
Apple has said the AppleTV is a hobby device, which means it is more of a beta/test/plqce-holder product than an actual product.
That? somehow HAS to have its own panel built in?
It seems so unlikely to me that Apple would get into the game of producing TVs when it seems most of the interesting stuff could be contained to a set-top box. The screen is just a big monitor, reflecting whatever is being fed into it. What's to innovate there? With TVs, the interesting stuff is the content and the systems you can connect to it, not the hardware. It's a big flat screen. Who cares what company makes it?
What about the lack of 4k broadcast?
It'll play iTunes content (tv & movies).
What about time shifting with a DVR?
It'll play iTunes content whenever you want.
What about gaming?
It'll play iTunes/iOS apps & games.
What about a universal remote?
Siri. Or iPad or iPhone.
All the pieces are already here. All the Apple television is, is a high resolution (4k) monitor with the current little $99 Apple TV box contents embedded inside (and upgraded from iOS 4.x to 6.0). Nothing radical. How can people not see this?
No one can match this.
Apple comes out with 4k resolution TV.
I don't see Apple producing a TV ever. If they DO, I don't see them settling for anything less than Super Hi-Vision. And then they wouldn't have to an upgrade ever, because nothing higher than SHV can ever be resolved by the human eye.
It'll play iTunes content (tv & movies).
HAH AHA H AH AH A HA HA H AH 720p HAHA HA HA HA HA H AH AH AH
It'll play iTunes content whenever you want.
Oh yeah. THIS is the future of TV. ONLY what you want and whenever you want it.
It'll play iTunes/iOS apps & games.
Eh, no. They don't really work for that.
Siri. Or iPad or iPhone.
HEY. TV. *loud sounds* GO TO THE OTHER SHOW *continued loud sounds* HEY, ah screw it, I'll just use my iPad like a sane person would.
All the pieces are already here. All the Apple television is, is a high resolution (4k) monitor with the current little $99 Apple TV box contents embedded inside (and upgraded from iOS 4.x to 6.0). Nothing radical.
How can people not see this?
"Maybe I just want the little box? I'll choose whatever panel I want since Apple doesn't often choose the right ones. Oh, and I own a TV already. Several, in fact. As does everyone else in the country. I'm not spending thousands when I could just spend $200."
Apple Retina TV.
Itunes Retina content.
Siri currently only does speech recognition. What if it did voice recognition? Only your voice would control your tv.
Siri currently only does speech recognition. What if it did voice recognition? Only your voice would control your tv.
All right, are there any voice recognition companies that actually work these days? I'm talking the same level of quality that Nuance brings to speech recognition.
Also, we seem to be ignoring the big thing. Maybe I don't want my television perpetually connected to the Internet for Siri. Unless Apple is willing to load it up with all the software required for Siri processing?
Of course, I still don't buy the whole 'making a television' bit.
All right, are there any voice recognition companies that actually work these days? I'm talking the same level of quality that Nuance brings to speech recognition.
Also, we seem to be ignoring the big thing. Maybe I don't want my television perpetually connected to the Internet for Siri. Unless Apple is willing to load it up with all the software required for Siri processing?
Of course, I still don't buy the whole 'making a television' bit.
Remember Apple took that charge a while back for investing in "display technology"? 4k fits perfectly into the timeline.
Apple TVs have been hack to run arbitrary iOS apps recently. Did you read about how all of Apple's apps displayed fine on a tv monitor?
Siri's still in beta--what is Apple holding back? Voice recognition.
All the pieces fit together.
All the pieces fit together.
Dream big if you wish.
I'll dream realistically.
Dream big if you wish.
I'll dream realistically.
It's just like the iPhone and iPad Retina displays. HD tv scales up pixel perfect to 4k resolution, doesn't it?
Sharp just announced a 4k tv at CES. Isn't Sharp rumored to be Apple's display partner?
Nothing wacky here. It all fits together.
Of course, they heard a rumor, decided to make a TV, did much research, created a concept, built the concept, created the final product, all of this in a few months just to face a non-existing Apple television... Give me a break.
Of course not. They have no idea what Apple is actually going to do, so all they did was release exactly what they were going to release anyway.
Since they were asked about the competition, they commented on it.
What, you expected them to say, "We're terrified of what Apple's going to release. Even if they don't release a television to compete, if they do release SOMETHING, it's going to be leagues better than anything we have. We have absolutely no clue what they're doing, but history shows that they always do things that no one ever expects and it takes us years to catch up."? Come off it. They have to give the standard line, "We're not worried; anything they can do will just be what we've been doing for years; they're nothing special", etc.
CES is more about presenting future flops than successes
It's called the Concept Electronics Show isn't it?!?
As for the current, incessant rumour of an Apple-branded TV, I simply cannot conceive of what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) might introduce to drive me to replace a relatively new 1080p 40" set which, given the manner in which cable works here, is used as no more than a large monitor anyway. I don't need a new TV...I need a replacement for the cable box!
...but I simply cannot understand why Apple would want to enter the TV market...
Well of course the 'boxes' vary too much around the world for Apple to easily address this area. The SmartTV is the area Apple can go...
I don't know what brand of tv (display) you have but everyone I've ever seen/used lags horribly when using the UI. Apple has clear strengths in UI and that alone on just the display part is massively appealing to me.
Apple comes out with 4k resolution TV.
What about the lack of 4k broadcast?
It'll play iTunes content (tv & movies).
What about time shifting with a DVR?
It'll play iTunes content whenever you want.
What about gaming?
It'll play iTunes/iOS apps & games.
What about a universal remote?
Siri. Or iPad or iPhone.
No way will it be 4k for many many years, there's precious few 1080p broadcasts at the moment and we're not exactly flush with RF bandwidth for such channels. You can't make more bandwidth, only explorer better technologies to use the RFs you have.
Alternatively who would pay for the trunk and local loop infrastructure to support even 1080p streaming? Parts of the UK have no broadband and there are a vast number of ISPs offering only a few GB download limits per month even SD ITVplayer/iPlayer/4OD isnt feasible for all.
iOS apps make no sense on a TV. iOS apps lever sensors such as gps, gyro etc, multitouch input and often just snippets of data on small displays. An Apple TV would support AirPlay of course but running current iOS software wouldn't work. There's no reason why it could have specify apps.
I'll let you know when I crack it.
Jokes aside, I think that unless Apple got content deals it is going to try to replace the set top box. I imagine a TV where you just connect the cable and the apple tv set it in a beautiful interface.
Consider the differences between our expectations of cell phones prior to January 9, 2007 and after January 9, 2007. It is truly amazing to me that so many people seem to have learned nothing from Apple's impact on the cell phone.
Ok, I agree with the problems, but it's not the TV's fault. Put another way, how would an Apple TV solve any of that? Unless Apple starts making their own game consoles, blu-ray players, and builds their own cable network, you are still going to have those same issues with an Apple device...multiple remotes, switching sources, crappy CableCards.
TV sets are inanimate objects. They have no responsibility for anything. They are at fault for nothing. The fault with TV sets lies with their designers.
When the iPhone went on sale, Apple also sold its own Bluetooth headset. However, third-party headsets also worked with the iPhone. Apple no longer makes its own headsets. However, you may still pair your third-party headset with your iPhone. There is no need for the owner to make the choice between his/her X-Box or Wii and Apple HDTV. Such a choice would be a lost Apple sale for many potential customers. The same goes for Blu-ray players, DVDs, cable set top box, and such like.
The solution is iOS and iOS-based devices. Of course, an Apple HDTV would be iOS-based. Its remote control would also be iOS-based. It could be the ultimate universal remote. As I write this, anyone can go to the iTunes Music Store and download emulator apps for any of numerous remote control for various devices. Among the devices supported by the remote control emulators available on the iTMS is the Google TV.
Get you brain around this--any Google TV owner can use his iPhone as the Google TV remote control--today! In its present state, the iPhone is more functional than any other universal remote on the market. To make the iPhone the ultimate remote control, however, it has to do more than simply control every device in your entertainment center. I envision a wrapper app that integrates and unifies all of the device-specific remote control emulators while preserving all functions of each.
There are additional issues that I will address below.
I agree that the TV experience sucks, but that has more to do with the sources of content. Could Apple flex it's muscle and get some sort of licensing agreements with the content providers which would then allow them to integrate it into an AppleTV? Sure. But you shouldn't need a TV from Apple, only an AppleTV box to connect to your TV.
OK. The problem with TV is not lack of content. If you live in or near a large metropolitan area, you may have upwards of 50 program streams over the air. Your cable TV franchise may provide over 1000 channels. You have Internet services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu+, Pandora, and Apple's own iTunes.
There is no lack-of-content problem, there is a content management problem. We are still operating on a paradigm that was developed when all but the largest cities had only three channels. Cable companies manage their programming using a paradigm that ran out of steam when they exceeded 20 channels on their systems.
The notion that Apple will flex its muscles with cable providers is a pipe dream. With the possible exception of Florida where Bright House has franchises that cover several counties, cable providers are very fractured with separate franchise agreements with each local government. Your neighbors across the street may have a different cable company than you. Even if they have the same cable company, they may have a different mix of channels.
And if that content offering isn't robust enough, you'll still have to deal wtih the cable company and their CableCards.
None of my TVs support CableCard, so that I have no idea whether it sucks or not. Assuming that you are correct, I am reminded of an important fact. USB existed before Apple supported it on the original iMac. However, it floundered because it sucked. Many people today believe that Apple was the first computer manufacturer to support USB because it had the first USB implementation that did not suck.
BTW, the US Federal Government mandated that the cable providers provide CableCard-like functionality--the ability to tune all available channels without a separate set top box. CableCard is the implementation of the Federal mandate that the providers worked out with TV set manufacturers. It might be interesting if Apple could persuade one or more cable providers to support a firmware-based equivalent of CableCard with downloadable firmware instead of the removable PCMCIA card.
And you'll still need to have a way to switch sources when you want to play your blu-ray disc because you know there is no way Apple will make a blu-ray player. I guarantee I can switch inputs on my current TV faster than you'd ever be able to on an Apple minimalist remote, digging down into menus to find the Sources list.
Virtually every TV sold has a remote control that includes switching among sources as a standard function. I have already explained that Apple's remote will be an iOS device.
I'm sure Apple could make some improvements, and they can certainly make it prettier. But I struggle with how they can solve the issues you listed unless they start making all those devices and offering all those services themselves.
Apple has been around since 1976. The Macintosh has been around since 1984-1983 if you count the Lisa. MacOS X has been around since 2001. The iPhone has been around since 2007. In 2012, you trot out that old saw, "Apple=pretty." It is as though you have learned nothing.
To the larger point, however, engineering is the art and science of the possible. Apple does a remarkable job of pushing the envelope of the possible. Apple's aesthetics go hand in glove with its engineering.
In all of the rumors about this fabled TV from Apple, nobody has dared even guess at what it's features might be that would make it another must-have device from Apple. And there is certainly nothing that couldn't be integrated into Apple's set-up AppleTV, not requiring us to purchase whole new TVs to use.
I have already expressed my opinion about an iOS-based universal remote. Everything that I have stated up to this point, however, should work with any TV set, not just one from Apple.
What additional features would an Apple HDTV support? Communication between every TV now on the market and its remote control is one-way. An Apple HDTV could feature two-way communication:
- Paired Apple HDTV and iOS-based remote control. Today, virtually any remote control can control virtually any TV of the same brand. This would be a disaster in a room where everyone has his/her own iPhone. An Apple HDTV could have the ability to pair via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi with only certain specific iOS devices. I use my iPhone to control my TV, but my brother can't use his iPhone.
- Preview-based program selection. I purchased a Samsung digital OTA tuner back in 2004. The tuner creates a program guide by aggregating the PSIP streams from each subchannel. The tuner also creates a little preview video icon of each current program stream. The Apple HDTV could create similar preview icon of each available program stream irrespective of source. The TV could display the icons on its screen on command. It would also transmit the previews to the iOS-based remote control. Touching the preview icon on the remote changes the TV set to that program.
- Siri. The default Siri control would be through the iOS device that is used as the remote. Shouting at the TV is unnecessary. Because only paired devices may control the TV set, the viewer is assured that his/her program will not be interrupted by unauthorized individuals.
It is important not to sacrifice any existing TV functionality just because the TV has the bitten Apple logo. Everything that I have written is based on currently available technology or evolutionary logical next steps from current technology.