You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.
True HD translated into 4:3 = 1920x1440, not that far off from the iPad.
Pixels might be bigger on an HDTV but are very close to the same proportional ppi when viewed at normal distances.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
I get that...but I (and a couple others) am trying to tell you it's a pointless endeavor to do so, unless industry standards change in the near future.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market.
TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.
1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.
TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.
1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking?
No. Just as the first iPad screen and first iPhone screen weren't groundbreaking. A good display is a given, the area of breaking ground is in having everything from the one device.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
He/She means that the farther away you are, the less pixel density you need to be retina display. Something that you hold closer to your eyes, like an iPhone needs more PPI in order to be retina, while a giant billboard could be like 8 DPI and still be retina.
Personally I don't think Apple will release a TV. I think Steve was feeding Isaacson a bit of misleading information. When Steve said he "cracked the Apple TV", that means he threw his iPhone at the screen because he hated the new Apple TV interface so much.
Truedat- Steve Jobs also said. "I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo." when the iPod HiFi was released. For all we know he could have been jerking Issacson's chain- giving ambigous anwers- knowing this would keep him even more relevant beyond the grave.
TV's run on content and how could SJ crack the Hollyood/cable TV cabal? You can SHOUT at your Siri iTV all you want but you're not going to watch i.e. Game of Thrones unless HBO is on board with Apple.
That is why Apple needs to buy Disney for getting ESPN content. This way Apple will also get all the theme parks.
This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.
This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.
I'd see different pics. We're going to hear about this TV (and other products) until it actually exists, if it ever exists, so it might behoove AI to contract some people to create quality mockups.
Besides making the article feel a little less droll from seeing the image several times a week it could exite readership, this increasing page hits. If the mockup is hotlinked or copied the watermark will continually point readers AI.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.
Hi Sheldon,
There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.
Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
Hi Sheldon,
There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.
Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.
You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.
LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.
You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.
I actually get 1080i from my cable provider with minimal compression artifacts. But my OTA broadcasts are 1080p with occasional periods where reception drops and the picture pixelates and sound garbles a bit (the new version of static and snow). Unfortunately, I can only receive Public Television, Fox, and either CBS or ABC but never both at once.
Sharp, a major Apple supplier, has recently begun shipments of Retina Displays to Apple. Foxconn is Apple?s primary manufacturing partner, it assembles devices for Apple, including the iPhone and iPad.Sharp expects that the Foxconn deal will create more demand for products from its LCD factory in Sakai, Japan. The factory first opened in 2009.The deal will make Foxconn the single largest shareholder in Sharp, which is expected to see its biggest annual loss in the company?s 99-year history. Sharp has seen revenues from HDTV panels drop, though new displays based on IGZO panels may help.Reports are that Apple is working on its own television set. Rumors of the television have picked up steam since the release of the Steve Jobs biography written by Walter Isaacson, who revealed Jobs had told him that he felt he had ?cracked? the secret to a simple and elegant television set.Recent reports have Apple beginning to line up suppliers for the new device. Rumors have been floated about a formal product launch in late 2012.
Comments
You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.
Here's the numbers:
True HD= 1920x1080 @16:9 aspect
iPhone =960x640 @ 4:3 aspect
iPad=2048x1536 @ 4:3 aspect
True HD translated into 4:3 = 1920x1440, not that far off from the iPad.
Pixels might be bigger on an HDTV but are very close to the same proportional ppi when viewed at normal distances.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
I get that...but I (and a couple others) am trying to tell you it's a pointless endeavor to do so, unless industry standards change in the near future.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market.
TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.
1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.
TV displays are already very good. That's not a differentiator, it's a prerequisite. A differentiator is a TV that is also a games console, that is also a content hub, that's physically beautifully designed, that has excellent software, that is an all-in-one entertainment centre hub (with no additional boxes required), that enables one remote per living room out of the box and has an Apple sense of intuition, polish and simplicity. That's the differentiator. Not to mention it'll work with all our your devices without needing an extra box or dongle hanging off the side and needing to be set up and input switched each time it's used. And it'll have apps - done correctly.
1080p is fine. Not only that but any higher and people would definitely not be able to handle the bandwidth coming through their pipes. Personally I have an Apple TV previous gen and find the quality very acceptable. You're not a typical user, your the exception not the rule. iTV here we come.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking?
No. Just as the first iPad screen and first iPhone screen weren't groundbreaking. A good display is a given, the area of breaking ground is in having everything from the one device.
Oh right- whatever you say.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
He/She means that the farther away you are, the less pixel density you need to be retina display. Something that you hold closer to your eyes, like an iPhone needs more PPI in order to be retina, while a giant billboard could be like 8 DPI and still be retina.
Truedat- Steve Jobs also said. "I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo." when the iPod HiFi was released. For all we know he could have been jerking Issacson's chain- giving ambigous anwers- knowing this would keep him even more relevant beyond the grave.
TV's run on content and how could SJ crack the Hollyood/cable TV cabal? You can SHOUT at your Siri iTV all you want but you're not going to watch i.e. Game of Thrones unless HBO is on board with Apple.
That is why Apple needs to buy Disney for getting ESPN content. This way Apple will also get all the theme parks.
This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.
This rumor is as old as the image AI uses to associate to the article. Please AI get a new image. I'm tried of seeing "House" on a Cinema display that in all likelihood will not look anything like the new Apple television set.
I'd see different pics. We're going to hear about this TV (and other products) until it actually exists, if it ever exists, so it might behoove AI to contract some people to create quality mockups.
Besides making the article feel a little less droll from seeing the image several times a week it could exite readership, this increasing page hits. If the mockup is hotlinked or copied the watermark will continually point readers AI.
I beg to disagree- 1080P TVs runs the full gamut from reference quality to piss poor. Very good is not a prerequisite. I'm sure Apple's display will be very good but will it be groundbreaking? Some basic Sharp 1080P screen won't be much of an incentive to buy for me, I don't care what bells and whistles Apple brings to it. But for the Apple masses I'm sure they'll bite.
Hi Sheldon,
There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.
Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.
Understood- but what I am trying to say is that Apple should have something Resoutionary to differentiate its TV display in the market. An LCD screen doesn't seem like the answer IMHO when we now have super thin LED HDTVs with far superior pictures to LCDs not to mention the Plasmas. I am just curious as to what the actual screen will be as opposed to what the functions of the iTV will allow.
LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.
Hi Sheldon,
There really isn't any point in selling a better than a 1080p display without better than 1080p content.
Personally I would love a large 4:3 aspect ratio screen where the black bars are filled by information instead of shrinking the picture to display a low-rez channel guide.
You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.
LEDs are LCDs. Sharp sells more "LEDs" than "LCDs". And apples to apples- no high end LED beats a high end plasma. No low end LED beats a low end plasma. You should probably learn a little more about what you're talking about before you post. Or- ask questions in the post to learn more, instead of acting like a know it all.
You beat me to it- I was going to say the same thing. The best picture quality on the market (Blu-Ray) won't benefit from 100x the pixels. The content isn't there to match it. At least in the US- there isn't one cable channel that is 1080p- 720p is all we get. As a video snob myself- people only look at one aspect and think that will fix the rest. Remember the "weakest link" rule- and fix that. Our TVs are nowhere near the problem.
I actually get 1080i from my cable provider with minimal compression artifacts. But my OTA broadcasts are 1080p with occasional periods where reception drops and the picture pixelates and sound garbles a bit (the new version of static and snow). Unfortunately, I can only receive Public Television, Fox, and either CBS or ABC but never both at once.