PDA

View Full Version : Apple Television Set Rumors Revived, To Launch in 2011?




MacRumors
Jun 21, 2011, 04:23 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/apple-television-set-rumors-revived-to-launch-in-2011/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/dailytech.jpg
DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/Source+Apple+to+Enter+TV+Display+Business+Late+This+Year/article21967.htm) revives a long running rumor that Apple may be getting into the TV set business. (via 9to5mac (http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/21/apple-to-launch-ios-powered-tv-display-this-fall/)) These rumors have been running for years with previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/01/06/apple-to-announce-42-and-50-plasma-viiv-displays/) even specifying that Apple would release 42" and 50" Plasmas displays for sale in Apple Stores. Both Apple's Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have dismissed the possibility of an Apple TV set before. In 2010 (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/apple-coo-tim-cook-speaks-at-goldman-sachs-conference/), Cook responded to questions about the Apple TV set top box at a Goldman Sachs Conference:Q: Where do you see things going with the Apple TV?
A: It's still a hobby, but our gut tells us there's something there. The go-to-market model is difficult, and we have no interest in being in the TV market. But we have continued to invest in the Apple TV and will keep doing so. According to DailyTech, a "former Apple executive" has revealed that the company has entered into a partnership with an unnamed consumer electronics manufacturer to build Apple-branded television sets that will come with Apple TV and iTunes functionalities built directly into the television set.According to source Apple plans to "blow Netflix and all those other guys away" by bundling Apple TV + iTunes inside physical television sets. According to the source Apple is teaming up with a major supplier (our guess would be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEO:005930)), to provide the physical televisions, which will be rebranded as Apple television sets.While the televisions would be manufactured by the partner company, they would be branded and marketed as Apple products. Apple is understood to be shooting for a fall release, although the debut may slip into early next year.

Apple's own Apple TV set top box has seen limited success since its launch with Apple describing the entire business as a "hobby". Selling an all-in-one solution could address one of the hurdles that Steve Jobs discussed (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/20/ces-2011-google-tv-sees-delays/) when talking about Google's entry into the same market: "Subsidized set-top boxes have squashed innovation because no one wants to pay for separate boxes...ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months. The set-top box needs to be torn up and redesigned to get people things they way they want them.DailyTech hasn't been a recent source of Apple-related rumors, so it's hard to gauge their accuracy on the topic.

Article Link: Apple Television Set Rumors Revived, To Launch in 2011? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/apple-television-set-rumors-revived-to-launch-in-2011/)



wordoflife
Jun 21, 2011, 04:26 PM
42 inch TV: Just $6999.

Jokes aside, I think Apple has the capability of producing some very nice TV sets (quality wise) as well as implementing a lot of features like built in WiFi ... hell, just throwing an Apple TV into that in general.

mrgraff
Jun 21, 2011, 04:26 PM
Launch in 2011? I can't wait :D

*LTD*
Jun 21, 2011, 04:27 PM
Game-changer.

But that's a little early.

42streetsdown
Jun 21, 2011, 04:27 PM
i'd rather have more TV functionality on my iMac

appleguy123
Jun 21, 2011, 04:29 PM
I wouldn't want to buy a 2,000$ tv every time some new software feature I want comes out. That's the main reason I like the set top box idea.

important
Jun 21, 2011, 04:29 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

Piggie
Jun 21, 2011, 04:30 PM
I could understand, and think it would be a great idea to build the AppleTV functionality into TV's

TV's which already do other things.

But I'm not sure making an AppleTV "ONLY" TV would be a good thing, as it will be compared to other, what people are calling "Smart TV's" which can and will do a whole lot more.

So, yes, Add AppleTV into TV's, but don't make TV's which only offer Apple TV and nothing else.
Otherwise you may as well get a all singing all dancing TV and plug an AppleTV into it, and get the best of both worlds.

Oletros
Jun 21, 2011, 04:30 PM
"blow Netflix and all those other guys away" by bundling Apple TV + iTunes inside physical television sets"

Yes, nothing can blow away Netflix and all those guys than a very expensive TV with iTunes integrated.


Oh, yes, is game changing. It's more convenient than having a TV + an Apple TV

smakus
Jun 21, 2011, 04:30 PM
Samsung has their own app store built into their televisions, complete with Netflix app, etc.

For them to completely abandon that in favor of an Apple pairing... well, it just seems unlikely.

Apple selling televisions doesn't exactly sound likely either. And the only way Apple is going to put a dent in Netflix's progress over the last couple years is to offer all-you-can-eat subscriptions through iTunes. That won't happen. A lot of this stuff blowing in the wind is likely bunk.

iMJustAGuy
Jun 21, 2011, 04:31 PM
Hallelujer!! Finally!

esquared
Jun 21, 2011, 04:31 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening.

Agreed, makes no sense whatsoever.

donny77
Jun 21, 2011, 04:32 PM
What I'd like to see is a standard expansion module on the back of the TV. Then you could insert an Apple TV, Roku, Direct TV, TIVO, or Cable box unit into the slot. the Width and connector would be standard and it would add whatever functionality. This allows one to upgrade their Apple TV, without replacing a perfectly fine TV.

radiogoober
Jun 21, 2011, 04:32 PM
lol why would Apple want to "blow out Netflix"? Netflix is on the current AppleTV (and it rocks!)

Arcus
Jun 21, 2011, 04:33 PM
Blow Netflix away? Lets see, all I can eat streaming and as many DVDs as I can watch , mail and watch for $9.00 a month. Ya, good luck with beating that.

streetkid
Jun 21, 2011, 04:34 PM
Can't see the love between Samsung and apple to be honest, given their to and fro court battles?

gt1948
Jun 21, 2011, 04:34 PM
PLasma? you must be kidding. LED or LCD yes but plasma No

appleguy123
Jun 21, 2011, 04:35 PM
It might work if Apple could subsidize the TV with a company that offers Internet and cable service(like AT&T).
52" Apple TV just $499 with two year contract.
Thoughts?

Consultant
Jun 21, 2011, 04:35 PM
Probably regurgitating a few year old rumor.

Apple isn't going to sell TVs in store. There isn't room for it.

Apple will sell improved Apple TV though.

Doctor Q
Jun 21, 2011, 04:35 PM
Forget the TV. I want larger and larger Apple displays on my desk. They don't need anything special built-in. I'll run whatever media app I want on my Mac.

skellener
Jun 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
Plasmas use too much power. I would expect if Apple did to a television, it would be LED to reduce energy consumption. I don't think they will do a television though.

I think they should just license AirPlay instead. It would probably make more sense to offer AirPlay in a receiver though, instead of a TV. Then the signal would just get pumped out to any type of TV you want. Just a thought.

paradox00
Jun 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
TVs with an Apple TV dock or ones that supported video AirPlay would make a lot more sense.

bbydon
Jun 21, 2011, 04:37 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

I used to think this but the more i see airplay the more i think they want the ipad too hold the apps and the Apple Tv be nothing more than a mirroring device. Its hard enough to do anything with that stupid apple remote.... the ipad solves that.

Icaras
Jun 21, 2011, 04:37 PM
PLasma? you must be kidding. LED or LCD yes but plasma No

Kidding? Why? For proper movie viewing on a TV, Plasma screens are still king of the hill. Look it up, or better yet, visit avsforum.com and find out for yourself.

However, that said, I am inclined to believe with skellener. As better as Plasma screens are for viewing film content, Apple strikes me as the company to be more eco-friendly about it and if I had to guess, would probably go the LED route anyway.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 21, 2011, 04:39 PM
I love my Apple TVs. However I couldn't imagine what a full TV remote would look like if apple had a say. Sure Apple TV remotes work because the OS is designed around them. Might be a cool way to integrate some touch into the remote that's actually useful....but with real buttons!

Either way, I'm sticking with set top for a long time. My LCDs are too new to want to replace within the foreseeable future.

Unggoy Murderer
Jun 21, 2011, 04:39 PM
Can't see the love between Samsung and apple to be honest, given their to and fro court battles?

Samsung wouldn't bat an eyelid at Apple asking them to supply any of their tech, all they care about is that Apple have billions to blow, and they could be on the receiving end of it.

jamesryanbell
Jun 21, 2011, 04:40 PM
Hallelujer!! Finally!

Madea reference FTW.

Porchland
Jun 21, 2011, 04:41 PM
I wouldn't want to buy a 2,000$ tv every time some new software feature I want comes out. That's the main reason I like the set top box idea.

Essentially every hardware product that Apple makes has update-able firmware. Why do you think Apple would produce a $2k TV that doesn't have update-able firmware?

I couldn't imagine what a full TV remote would look like if apple had a say. Sure Apple TV remotes work because the OS is designed around them. Might be a cool way to integrate some touch into the remote that's actually useful....but with real buttons!

One possibility is that Apple would provide a simple remote like the current one for Apple TV but push users toward an iPhone/iPad app with fuller functionality.

PLasma? you must be kidding. LED or LCD yes but plasma No

That reference is to an article from 2006, when plasmas were more predominant at the higher end of the market than they are now.

TVs with an Apple TV dock or ones that supported video AirPlay would make a lot more sense.

Why do you think Apple would only do one or the other? I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple license AirPlay to TV manufacturers whether there is an Apple-branded TV or not.

dgree03
Jun 21, 2011, 04:43 PM
Will it require extra dongle to connect to different things? Will it have a extra glossy screen? :D

Oletros
Jun 21, 2011, 04:44 PM
Essentially every hardware product that Apple makes has update-able firmware. Why do you think Apple would produce a $2k TV that doesn't have update-able firmware?

Yap, but no firmware upgrade can make a device intended to play only 720p H.264 MP play 1080p H.264 HP if the hardware can't do that

eNcrypTioN
Jun 21, 2011, 04:44 PM
Sign me up for an Apple TV if it isn't a lot more than normal tvs.

TYMUL
Jun 21, 2011, 04:45 PM
Perhaps it would be something of a Cinema display but featuring a built in Apple TV

nagromme
Jun 21, 2011, 04:46 PM
I agree, the best way to “blow Netflix away,” with that service’s massive selection, is Apple’s existing solution: bundle Netflix support!

Perhaps it would be something of a Cinema display but featuring a built in Apple TV

Although, typically, a TV has lower image quality—especially DPI—making it cheaper than a quality computer monitor of the same size (but less suitable for conventional computing).

So an existing 27” LED Cinema Display with 2560x1440 (much more than HD) could be expensive overkill in the living room. A lower-image-quality, but larger-diagonal, screen sounds more sensible.

(Although I’m skeptical of this rumor anyway, unless it’s just more “hobby” experimentation. Apple already has a box that works pretty painlessly with existing TVs, after all. And a TV is decor; it’s furniture. Some would love the style and size[s] Apple offered, but Apple’s product just couldn’t fit with every setting. And that limits the market.)

kristoffer4
Jun 21, 2011, 04:46 PM
I don't think Apple will partner with Samsung on this. A partnership with Sony could make sense though...

appleguy123
Jun 21, 2011, 04:46 PM
Essentially every hardware product that Apple makes has update-able firmware. Why do you think Apple would produce a $2k TV that doesn't have update-able firmware?



-voice control
-video recording
-cover flow on video iPod
Apple does stuff like this all the time.

heyjp
Jun 21, 2011, 04:48 PM
There may be a market for apple to sell such an integrated TV to, but not my house. I don't mind buying a new $99 AppleTV every other year when the hardware needs refreshing (faster chips, more memory, faster video processing), but I'm not going to buy a new 52" TV screen every other year. And I don't want to get stuck when the technology is changing so fast each year.

Jim

Oletros
Jun 21, 2011, 04:48 PM
One possibility is that Apple would provide a simple remote like the current one for Apple TV but push users toward an iPhone/iPad app with fuller functionality.


Perfect to blow away competitors, a TV with a nearly useless remote

colmaclean
Jun 21, 2011, 04:49 PM
What are the chances of an Apple TV being DLNA compatible? I'd say slim.

Eduardo1971
Jun 21, 2011, 04:50 PM
Game-changer.

But that's a little early.

You forgot 'magical' and 'revolutionary'.

Lepton
Jun 21, 2011, 04:50 PM
All they really have to do is take the Apple TV and add an HDMI pass through input to it, so that they way you hook it up is _between_ your regular cable TV box and the TV. Normally, it is just a pass through, but when it is time to show something on the Apple TV (for example AirPlay-ing something to it from your iPad) it takes over the TV without you having to switch anything.

In the current scheme, the Apple TV is a second input device. Changing it as above moves it not only to the first tier, but it actually trumps the old first tier device (cable) by being able to cut into it at will.

Selling actual TVs is not a winning strategy. There are too many screen sizes, too many display technologies to maintain. Don't take over the display itself, take over the main input to the display.

hansende
Jun 21, 2011, 04:51 PM
version 1 black and white
version 2 color

ipedro
Jun 21, 2011, 04:51 PM
Perhaps it would be something of a Cinema display but featuring a built in Apple TV

This.

Apple already makes "TV's". A refresh of the Cinema Display line with larger sizes and built in AppleTV's would essentially launch Apple into the TV market.

Another option would be for Apple to partner with existing TV makers and build AppleTV chips into those. Televisions don't have a high profit margin because they're so expensive to transport and warehouse and feature expensive components. Allowing existing manufacturers to take on that burden while still promoting Apple's ecosystem is a win-win.

In expanding the adoption of AppleTV by bundling it into other manufacturer's tv's, Apple would benefit in the sale of iOS devices like iPads and iPhones and in iTunes sales.

Hairball
Jun 21, 2011, 04:53 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

"Subsidized set-top boxes have squashed innovation because no one wants to pay for separate boxes...ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months. The set-top box needs to be torn up and redesigned to get people things they way they want them."

I agree about it being a pain to buy a separate box, especially for multiple TVs, but I have to say I live the apple tv 2.

rovex
Jun 21, 2011, 04:53 PM
IPS tech would be wonderful coupled with ultra high resolution and they've got good chances.

gramirez2012
Jun 21, 2011, 04:54 PM
2011? That's this year, which is half over already. Seems kind of sudden.

russellb
Jun 21, 2011, 04:55 PM
Plasma .. are you joking ... big , heavy, hot .... LCD or LED is the future .. sorry plasma.

I love my Apple TV and I dont see why Apple would want to turn a TV into a sudo itunes / Apple TV.

I would much much rather see a small $99 box revamped and updated so I could plug it into the TV , or in my case my 8ft HD projector wall screen !!!

I dont see the sense in Apple getting into TV's. The current Apple TV fits ANY household no matter what their TV or projector choice. If they get into actual TV's how many sizes are they going to have to stock to keep everyone happy .. I just cant see the point.

Every 2 years when you could happily go and buy the next greatest updated $99 Apple TV but if you had an actual "Apple LCD TV" it is out of date and people aren't going to go upgrade their TV every couple of years.

I dont see it happening.

DELLsFan
Jun 21, 2011, 04:55 PM
Blow Netflix away? Lets see, all I can eat streaming and as many DVDs as I can watch, mail, rip, and watch for $9.00 a month. Ya, good luck with beating that.

Fixed that for you. :D

heyjp
Jun 21, 2011, 04:56 PM
I think Apple will come out with a typically artsy Black & White only TV... but have problems producing White and have a Black only set for the first year.

Jim

Porchland
Jun 21, 2011, 04:57 PM
Yap, but no firmware upgrade can make a device intended to play only 720p H.264 MP play 1080p H.264 HP if the hardware can't do that

But that's not because it's an Apple TV. That's true of any 720P TV.

I'm not saying Apple will come out with one TV model and never improve the specs in future updates. I'm just saying if you don't want to buy an Apple-branded TV, it shouldn't be because you're worried that you'll have to buy a new one to get software improvements.

Apple typically makes software improvements backward compatible up to the point that the software improvements don't function well with older hardware/processors.

Spanky Deluxe
Jun 21, 2011, 04:59 PM
This would be one Apple product I'd pass on. I like to keep my TVs for at least 3 years, ideally 5. IOS devices older than about 2 years are either not supported or painfully slow so I wouldn't trust Apple with such a substantial investment. A phone is one thing but a $$$$ television is another. Besides which, I doubt Apple would go with Plasma tech which is the only way aside from projectors to get large sized TVs and having bought a 64" Sammy a couple of months ago, I wouldn't go any smaller.

jamied95
Jun 21, 2011, 04:59 PM
So, let me get this straight, they want to buy some Samsung TVs, and stick a label with an Apple over the 'Samsung'?

Right.

xnu
Jun 21, 2011, 05:01 PM
Apple to license it to Sony? Sony TVs with Apple iOS built in? Perhaps another brand. If Apple decides to license it to one or more TV makers, wow, could be great for the industry and Apple.

motulist
Jun 21, 2011, 05:01 PM
The only way this rumor is remotely true is if Apple has worked out a deal with one or more TV manufactures to have the AppleTV hardware/software built right into the TVs themselves in the same way that many new TVs have built in NetFlix clients.

Bubba Satori
Jun 21, 2011, 05:01 PM
PLasma? you must be kidding. LED or LCD yes but plasma No

Why do you hate iMirror technology.
It's like getting two shows for the price of one.
The show on the Plasma and all the reflections around the room. Magic.
A $1,500 tv with a $4,000 Apple sticker on it. :apple:

8CoreWhore
Jun 21, 2011, 05:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This will happen so get ready.

gatearray
Jun 21, 2011, 05:03 PM
I don't see this quote in the original MR post, but here it is from the article...

a former Apple executive spilled the beans on the project, saying*”you’ll go into an Apple retail store and be able to walk out with a TV. It’s perfect.”

What's so perfect about this scenario, exactly???

Is it the Apple Store guy helping me bring a 50" TV out to my car, or perhaps for Apple, it's perfect to dedicate significant Apple Store shelf space to such a low margin commodity item like a television set that people buy once every 5 years!?!?


Two words for all of this: utter ****ing nonsense. Alright, three words. :)

MacinDoc
Jun 21, 2011, 05:04 PM
Well said, gatearray.

The iOS tech gets outdated much more quickly than the TV tech, so it seems like a match made in hell. As others have said, no way do I want to upgrade a $2000 TV just to get the latest in connectivity. On top of that, getting into a low-margin price-chopping consumer-driven market like TVs is very contrary to Apple's typical business model. i just can't see this happening, this year or at any time in the future.

Maury
Jun 21, 2011, 05:06 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

Seriously.

I tried the ATV2, got lent one for free (says a lot doesn't it?) so I could compare it to my ATV1. There's no comparison.

For one thing, I really can see the difference in the menus between 1080 and 720. Perhaps my TV has crappy downscaling, but still, ugly.

For another, where's the TV menu? Am I doing something wrong?

NetFlix is great, but I have to say that I think the interface on the PS3 is actually better. Not better looking, but easier to use. Everything is "up front" as opposed to under a menu layer.

But the really big problem is that you can no longer "slave" it to a machine. When you said that you wanted to sync from machine XXX, all of that content appeared in the ATVs menus. That was true even if you didn't actually sync the content. In the ATV2, this content appears under the Computers menu, which requires me to navigate down through the menus into my machine. It's WAY less convenient.

So I'm returning the free unit (that says a lot too, no?). I'll wait for the ATV3 to see if it's any better.

Obi-Wan Kubrick
Jun 21, 2011, 05:09 PM
I am against the idea of a TV with an Apple TV built in, mostly because I think the industry is adding far to many extra features that raise the price. I want a 52" LED TV without built in netflix, pandora, or the 5 other services built in. What if in 5 years ago Pandora or etc isn't offered through my TV anymore?

On the other hand I would love to see a TV designed by Jon Ives.

Maury
Jun 21, 2011, 05:09 PM
"Subsidized set-top boxes have squashed innovation because no one wants to pay for separate boxes...ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months."

Ok, but ask Nintendo, MS and Sony and you'll get a different answer.

The problem isn't the box, it's the content. Give me an ATV with App Store and I'll be all over that thing. Especially when they get the CBC app and I can ditch cable.

bit density
Jun 21, 2011, 05:11 PM
What I'd like to see is a standard expansion module on the back of the TV. Then you could insert an Apple TV, Roku, Direct TV, TIVO, or Cable box unit into the slot. the Width and connector would be standard and it would add whatever functionality. This allows one to upgrade their Apple TV, without replacing a perfectly fine TV.

You mean an HDMI port?

gkarris
Jun 21, 2011, 05:11 PM
Well, here's Sony's with Android/Google built-in:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_SonyInternetTV#googleTVSet_40

(40" - $799, 46" - $1,199)

I would imagine it would just be an A4 chip with iOS instead...

I use projectors (or old tube TV's... ;) ), so I haven't been in the market for an LCD and don't know what the general prices for these things are....

djrobsd
Jun 21, 2011, 05:12 PM
And all the fanboys will be lining up to get their 40 inch AppleTV for only $2999, 50 inch for $3999 and 60 inch for $4999....

Pass.

jmcrutch
Jun 21, 2011, 05:13 PM
I don't think it will happen, but if it does, it'll be manufactured by ...


LG.


Apple will likely license much of iOS and Airplay to run inside any TV that a manufacturer want's to build, much the same way that Netflix is included in TV's today. Oh, and it will be pretty. And the remote will be touchscreen and the best one you've ever used.

roland.g
Jun 21, 2011, 05:14 PM
Unless Apple puts a decent webcam in the bezel, potentially with a panning gyro and some zooming capability, to bring FaceTime to the Living Room, forget it. That's where I expect TV and Apple TV to go. Forget computers, iPads and iPhones, we want to see family on friends in our Living Rooms.

KanosWRX
Jun 21, 2011, 05:14 PM
Let's see 100 dollars for a little box i can hook up to anything or $2000 dollars for a new 50" tv to replace my 50" tv I already paid for. Hm let's see, yep stupidest idea evar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Little boxes are cool and cheap big tvs people buy once every 5-10 years. Apple would be stupid to do this!

tjewey
Jun 21, 2011, 05:20 PM
Everyone is fixated with "TV". Apple will never do a TV as their direction is streaming. People are starting to get rid of their cable so the natural progression is a screen with the capabilities of the iPad/Apple TV. I will bet that their next big product (within the next few years) will be a 38" - 45" iPad/AppleTV hybrid. It will be a very thin touch screen, and stream your music, movies and TV shows. You heard it here first!!!! :cool:

buckers
Jun 21, 2011, 05:21 PM
Something odd about this concept. Can't see this happening, personally.

iMacThere4Iam
Jun 21, 2011, 05:22 PM
Think how long the lines outside the Apple Stores will be on release day, since everyone will bring a handcart and a large friend.

Friscohoya
Jun 21, 2011, 05:22 PM
Only way they make this work is if they can somehow turn the set top model on its head and subsidize the actual tv. If the price point is sub $1000 and 45"-50" they have a winner. If they can knock it down to around $500 people will sell whatever they got to get one of these. Imagine your cable company giving you a tv along with your a la carte subscrition service.

Saladinos
Jun 21, 2011, 05:22 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

They may be looking at it as an easier thing to market, as the article pointed out. Netflix and other VOD services are being integrated directly in to the TV, which makes buying another box a more difficult sell.

The current Apple solution doesn't "just work". Their integrated competitors' do.

dashiel
Jun 21, 2011, 05:23 PM
I used to think this but the more i see airplay the more i think they want the ipad too hold the apps and the Apple Tv be nothing more than a mirroring device.

Agreed. AirPlay is what I think Jobs was alluding to when he talked about blowing up the set-top box. You’ll never do an end-run around the Cable and Satellite fiefdoms so you cut them out of the picture.

What I think is far more likely, and possibly what this rumor is muddling up, is the inclusion of AirPlay capable chipsets in televisions, obviating the need to buy an AppleTV.

nutmac
Jun 21, 2011, 05:23 PM
I, for one, would welcome Apple-branded TV. Of course, Apple would have to get many things right. But the potentials:

A large display available all the time for mirroring iPhone/iPad wirelessly without pushing a single button. Full screen sweep gesture from iPhone/iPad to TV would automatically trigger mirroring.
Full Apple user experience, from changing channels, setup, to watching various contents.
Beautiful physical design.

Oletros
Jun 21, 2011, 05:23 PM
But that's not because it's an Apple TV. That's true of any 720P TV.

Well, it's true for any hardware. This is the reason I don't think embedding anything to a TV is something game changing

mdatwood
Jun 21, 2011, 05:25 PM
Blow Netflix away? Lets see, all I can eat streaming and as many DVDs as I can watch , mail and watch for $9.00 a month. Ya, good luck with beating that.

We have a winner, close the thread.

ATV + iTunes currently cannot compete with Netflix at all. Now if Apple brings out streaming and/or unlimited rentals for a fixed monthly price they might have something.

charlien
Jun 21, 2011, 05:28 PM
I love Apple products but I can't see myself standing in line to buy a TV branded with Apples name on it.

rick98761
Jun 21, 2011, 05:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

PLasma? you must be kidding. LED or LCD yes but plasma No

Plasma looks much better then an LCD or led. That's not even an opinion, it's a known fact unless your only source of info is best buy. Although they do use more power.

TNSF
Jun 21, 2011, 05:33 PM
According to source Apple plans to "blow Netflix and all those other guys away" by bundling Apple TV + iTunes inside physical television sets. According to the source Apple is teaming up with a major supplier (our guess would be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEO:005930)), to provide the physical televisions, which will be rebranded as Apple television sets.

Absolutely not going to happen. Apple would never release something that was simply rebranded. The design and build would have to be Apple through and through. Samsung might make some components, but the final product would be nothing less than true Apple.

donny77
Jun 21, 2011, 05:39 PM
You mean an HDMI port?

No an expansion port, on the back that the Apple TV would slide into, so there is no device you have to put somewhere and a dangling cable. It would slide in and possible be screwed into the expansion bay on the back of the TV.

Porchland
Jun 21, 2011, 05:39 PM
Only way they make this work is if they can somehow turn the set top model on its head and subsidize the actual tv. If the price point is sub $1000 and 45"-50" they have a winner. If they can knock it down to around $500 people will sell whatever they got to get one of these. Imagine your cable company giving you a tv along with your a la carte subscrition service.

I could see a Comcast-killer Apple-branded TV for sub-$1k with a content subscription. The kicker is whether Apple could get a deal worked out to include Comcast/NBCU content that would go after Comcast on its home turf, i.e., recurring cable subscriber fees, and I don't see Apple launching a cut-the-cable-cord product that does not include Comcast/NBCU's shows.

My guess: If Apple and Comcast ever get a content deal worked out, it will be for Apple to provide the UI for a Comcast subscriber-based service in Comcast's markets and Comcast provides its content to whatever deals Apple can get worked out with other carriers. Apple gets a piece of the recurring revenue from all of it, and the studios allow users to view the content on all iOS products.

Comcast has enough market power in local cable and in content to make it very difficult to go around them, so I think we would wind up with a carrier-based model like what we already have with local cable and mobile phones. The UI and content delivery would just be a lot better than it is now.

zombierunner
Jun 21, 2011, 05:40 PM
Woah this is cool .. I think what will be cooler is if the new apple television set in addition to having apple tv capabilities, also ran ios or a version of it designed for tvs ... so you could have apps on your tv just like the ipad and do stuff like view your email, surf safari play games using the apple tv set remote as controller and ofcourse stream your media from a computer.

wow that would really be cool

Bobtodd
Jun 21, 2011, 05:40 PM
Logistically a nightmare for stores to carry 50" tv's in store.
game over

cirus
Jun 21, 2011, 05:47 PM
Might force them to address the Blu-Ray problem....:D

oracle_ab
Jun 21, 2011, 05:49 PM
It might work if Apple could subsidize the TV with a company that offers Internet and cable service(like AT&T).
52" Apple TV just $499 with two year contract.
Thoughts?

Interesting idea.

Eduardo1971
Jun 21, 2011, 05:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)



Plasma looks much better then an LCD or led. That's not even an opinion, it's a known fact unless your only source of info is best buy. Although they do use more power.

The number of responders here making snide comments about plasma is sad. As most other responders on this post have mentioned-plasma televisions are heads and shoulders over LED/LCD.

Yes, they run warmer and use more power but the image and the richness of blacks makes up for it.

Porchland
Jun 21, 2011, 05:52 PM
ATV + iTunes currently cannot compete with Netflix at all. Now if Apple brings out streaming and/or unlimited rentals for a fixed monthly price they might have something.[/QUOTE]

Apple hasn't really tried to compete with Netflix.

First, Apple has the studio relationships to put together a subscription for catalog titles and has chosen not to. I think that's at least in part because Apple's brand is not compatible with what is the streaming video equivalent of second-run movie theaters. (I'm not saying Netflix isn't a good value; I'm saying I couldn't see Apple putting out a competing product that didn't have newer or exclusive content.)

Second, Apple is trying to play nice with the networks. That's why current TV show downloads on iTunes are still expensive enough that most users are not going to view iTunes as a cable replacement; it's great for an episode you missed but not for every episode you want to see. Apple doesn't want to threaten the networks' advertising and retrans revenue as long as there is a possibility that the networks will sign on to a subscription plan down the road that would result in bigger recurring revenue for Apple.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 21, 2011, 05:53 PM
This can't be true. It sounds like a money loser Google would try.

Netflix and itunes store are not competitors. They compliment one another. You can't beat netflix price and itunes store offers the option to buy if you like and also some titles netflix doesn't have. I don't understand why people get in a debate about one over the other.

bb426
Jun 21, 2011, 05:59 PM
I'm feeling close to the same as many people on here.

About the plasma situation, there's absolutely no chance Apple will go that route. They've always been about saving power; and plasmas are huge power hogs, no matter how nice they are on the eyes (Yes, I have a 60 inch Pioneer Plasma screen.... it is a beauty, but man does it get hot. Although, Apple's TC and AEBS don't seem to be far from the same operating temperature...:confused:). I guarantee it will be either LCD or LED, most likely, LED.

That's only if they do go down the TV Set path.

Overall, I don't see it happening. It would get too complicated having to deal with more service providers and SAMSUNG. Please.

I think sticking to the aTV is Apple's best bet. The only reason people aren't buying it is because of the lack of functionality: no web browser, no apps (other than Netflix and whatnot), no hard drive disk space.That's what also disappointed me on the aTV2 update... no hard drive or 1080p output.

What I DO see in the near future is making the aTV a gaming device. Throw in App support and HDD space. Hook it up with an iDevice and you pretty much have the new Wii. That's what will be the key selling point of the aTV3. :apple:

applefan289
Jun 21, 2011, 06:03 PM
The number of responders here making snide comments about plasma is sad. As most other responders on this post have mentioned-plasma televesion is heads and shoulders over LED/LCD.

Yes, they run warmer and use more power but the image and the richness of blacks makes up for it.

LCDs or LED-LCDs in my opinion look a lot better than plasma TVs.

I'm guessing the people who think plasma is better are talking about just from-far movie-watching.

If you walk into a good arcade (there aren't any these days) and take a look at an LCD monitor, it looks amazingly crisp. It also just feels more comfortable.

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPmeDQMSbWs

An LCD would be much better in this circumstance.

I just think LCDs/LED-LCDs look the best.

Whenever I see a plasma I don't think it looks as nice - it almost looks less consistent.

I bet you you're not using a plasma computer monitor. ;)

Lesser Evets
Jun 21, 2011, 06:09 PM
The "ONE BRAND" Apple TV sounds like an uphill struggle. Now, if they approach all TV manufacturers and get their devices implanted to maybe half of the major makers... and all those TVs feed directly into the Apple movie service... perhaps they will have a success. I doubt people will buy a specific TV just because an Apple TV is INSIDE of it. I wouldn't.

Dr Kevorkian94
Jun 21, 2011, 06:13 PM
id rathe buy one for $100 than $1000

kaimana
Jun 21, 2011, 06:15 PM
Perhaps Apple will integrate its brand and functionality into one or more TV stories without producing private label units...

Jason Beck
Jun 21, 2011, 06:17 PM
Correct me if I am wrong (I don't use iTunes), but do you not have to "rent" movies from iTunes? From Netflix you do not, unless you opt for the physical discs mailed to you. I don't see this as a game changer in entirety. If Apple wants to "blow the other guys out of the water", they need a subscription unlimited service. Plain and simple. Between Hulu and Netflix I can pretty much watch anything I want at any time without pulling my credit card out or 1 click buying.

Jason Beck
Jun 21, 2011, 06:18 PM
Apple should just buy Netflix or work a deal with them to integrate the service into iTunes.

Win.

TheSlush
Jun 21, 2011, 06:20 PM
So let me get this rumor straight... Apple's going to put their logo and brand and reputation on a piece of hardware they didn't make and aren't responsible for, only to provide software functionality to it? (Kind of like Microsoft does?)

No, they are not.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Remember that little ROKR experiment? Apple would prefer you didn't.

I can just see it now, small, on the back of the TV: "Made by Samsung, not in California"

I repeat:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Helghast
Jun 21, 2011, 06:22 PM
"The first aluminum unibody T.V".:)

runeapple
Jun 21, 2011, 06:23 PM
Card ready, TV in the dump :P
(Don't worry I can actually live without watching TV!)

PhilipOrr
Jun 21, 2011, 06:24 PM
Something I heard quite a while ago was when Pioneer had given up the TV business, a well known computer company had went to Pioneers' HQ and a number of patents in TV testing equipment had been signed over.

Shortly after that, on Patently Apple, patent filings for Apple had started to include TV in their findings. I had long suspected that maybe Apple themselves where that computer company.

Pioneer was once the high end kings of TV production and as such commanded top prices and we all know that Apple are very specific when it comes to testing and design.

I'm not sure if Apple would ever release an actual TV set or just incorporating that technology into their current or future monitors or iMacs, but what I do know is that when Apple want you to know what it's doing. We'll all be blown away, yet again.

Watch this space . . .

Fwink!
Jun 21, 2011, 06:27 PM
I think it's very unlikely that there will ever be a Apple branded television. They cannot compete in that market with the Apple brand/mark-up, regardless of the offering. Content and hardware in that realm are distinctly separate entities. I could see Apple licensing a variant of IOS for set-top use by other partnered manufacturers. Kind of like iTunes on the Rokr phones there for a bit.

academytim
Jun 21, 2011, 06:27 PM
LCDs or LED-LCDs in my opinion look a lot better than plasma TVs.

I would have to disagree with you there. You can not beat a Plasma TV in regards to refresh rate or contrast ratio. The new LED-LCD's come very very close, but they are typically much more expensive. LCD's are cheaper then Plasmas but don't even come close. Yes, I have all three types of TVs in my home. A 60" Plasma in the living room, a 37" LCD in the Master Bedroom, a 32" LCD in the Guest Bedroom, and a 24" LED-LCD in my son's Bedroom. The best looking TV in the house is the Plasma by far, and not just because of the size.

Xtremehkr
Jun 21, 2011, 06:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

It would make more sense to lisence the technology to existing television makers who can incorporate it in their televisions. The competition would be fierce but the Netflix CEO has recently heaped praise on the AppleTV as being a revolutionary product.

Netflix and Apple have a lot of influence between them.

WiiDSmoker
Jun 21, 2011, 06:29 PM
Something I heard quite a while ago was when Pioneer had given up the TV business, a well known computer company had went to Pioneers' HQ and a number of patents in TV testing equipment had been signed over.

Shortly after that, on Patently Apple, patent filings for Apple had started to include TV in their findings. I had long suspected that maybe Apple themselves where that computer company.

Pioneer was once the high end kings of TV production and as such commanded top prices and we all know that Apple are very specific when it comes to testing and design.

I'm not sure if Apple would ever release an actual TV set or just incorporating that technology into their current or future monitors or iMacs, but what I do know is that when Apple want you to know what it's doing. We'll all be blown away, yet again.

Watch this space . . .

This post just makes me cry for the fact that Pioneer left the market and their last TV has yet to be toppled.

PhilipOrr
Jun 21, 2011, 06:29 PM
Remember that little ROKR experiment? Apple would prefer you didn't.

The best way to get to know a market is to partner up with so called experts. Get to know the market and product placement. This is what happened with ROKR. Apple learned all there was to know, threw it in the bin, then took everyone by surprise and launched the then coolest smartphone ever produced.

PhilipOrr
Jun 21, 2011, 06:31 PM
This post just makes me cry for the fact that Pioneer left the market and their last TV has yet to be toppled.

I know. I still have their 50 inch beast in my living room. Have since bought various other TVs for around the house, but the Pioneer is still the best, so far.

the vj
Jun 21, 2011, 06:32 PM
If they have an actual TV, Apple can link TV commercials and shows to extra information and metadata.

You will be able to see a Ford commercial and with a click of the iRemote or your iPad or iPhone get the information of that product, prices and where to buy it.

That is a particular function the TV can receive and transmit to other Apple peripherals.

With Final Cut Pro, post production companies (like mine) will have to start embeding extra metadata to each production.

So now, you will watch TV and your MBP or iPad will be interacting in real time with the programming.

chrmjenkins
Jun 21, 2011, 06:33 PM
This post just makes me cry for the fact that Pioneer left the market and their last TV has yet to be toppled.

You do know that Panasonic absorbed their tech, right?

As for this rumor, it's consistently been the dumbest resurfacing one over the last few years.

Xtremehkr
Jun 21, 2011, 06:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Given that Apple 'doesn't want to be in the television business,' which I'm more than a little skeptical about.

Still, if LG had had a version of my TV with AppleTV incorporated it would have been my choice to an even greater degree of certainty.

LG could really use some help with their software. SimpLink is okay (as in it basically functions) but Apple could have done things 1000 times better.

smallnshort247
Jun 21, 2011, 06:36 PM
I think the idea of Apple making TV's is awesome. I just hope they keep prices reasonable, or else they wont get the market they're looking for. Then again, prices haven't stopped a lot of people from buying Apple products in the past.

Giuly
Jun 21, 2011, 06:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)

Now there will be LG Panels with an integrated Apple TV and an aluminum enclosure that cost even more than a Sony Bravia. Good to know, I opt for the genuine LG plus an Apple TV STB for 1/3-1/6 the price.

xper
Jun 21, 2011, 06:44 PM
Yeah i really really wish Apple bought everything from Pioneers TV tech (panasonic is not a worthy owner), i was so sad when Pioneer left the TV market, they had the best TV sets out there, by far, 3 years ago and they still awesome, imagine what they would have accomplish if Pioneer kept going, damn.

I am 100% certain that i will cry when my 5090H dies ;(

MattInOz
Jun 21, 2011, 06:47 PM
What I'd like to see is a standard expansion module on the back of the TV. Then you could insert an Apple TV, Roku, Direct TV, TIVO, or Cable box unit into the slot. the Width and connector would be standard and it would add whatever functionality. This allows one to upgrade their Apple TV, without replacing a perfectly fine TV.

Thunderbolt would be perfect for this...
It can feed the module 10W of power has a big wide data connection and the module feeds back Displayport to the screen. All they would really need to do is define a module case size so that then you insert it clips in and isn't hanging on the plug.

organerito
Jun 21, 2011, 06:48 PM
You forgot 'magical' and 'revolutionary'.

You have to "Think different" too.

Fwink!
Jun 21, 2011, 06:49 PM
Imagine this: a reasonably priced high quality tv, with a badge that says "IOS-Loaded" and "AppleTv Ready". With additional pamphlets & store schtick to sell you on Apple streaming content services.

The IOS is a licensed menu/navigation system, with hooks for an attached AppleTV that provides storage and wireless/streaming functionality.

I don't see most other content/cable services directly offering Apple branded content, they already have those channels in place for television programming. Though most could stand to have a iTunes like music service to offer, and Apple's movie purchase/rentals/internet capable youtub/hulu/content delivery system.

Pay me, Steve.

kockgunner
Jun 21, 2011, 06:50 PM
The market seems saturated right now. Even Samsung makes nice looking TVs so Apple will need to differentiate themselves more aesthetically. It would be cool if you could use your iPhone as a remote.

What I think Apple should really make is a printer. The all in ones right not are abysmal. Especially HP one's where you suddenly lose the ability to scan.

emaja
Jun 21, 2011, 06:52 PM
I doubt this is true only because I can't see what Apple could do better by making the TV with integrated services than they are currently doing with the addition of the AT2 to an existing TV.

I love both my ATVs - one of each generation. My problem is not with the integration into my existing entertainment center, but with the delivery of content. If there was way to deliver a la carte channels from a local provider and MLBTV, then we could be talking about something special.

Not sure why they would need to make their own TV do so that though.

cirus
Jun 21, 2011, 06:52 PM
What everyone is forgetting is that it will very likely NOT be reasonably priced.

xper
Jun 21, 2011, 06:58 PM
What everyone is forgetting is that it will very likely NOT be reasonably priced.
And if by "everyone is forgetting" you mean "as several posters have already stated; it will very likely NOT be reasonably priced".......read before you post, mkay?

Keebler
Jun 21, 2011, 06:59 PM
I find this one intriguing with the same talk of Apple becoming a telecom - they have enough money, they can do what they want....play around...try new areas....buy others.

so, i wouldn't trash this rumour quite so fast.

interesting - I can't personally see myself buying a TV from Apple, but then again, I know nothing of what it would be so who knows :)

BruiserB
Jun 21, 2011, 06:59 PM
It would be cool for TV's to come with an AppleTV dock....on the back of the flatscreen in a cutout place, where you just place an AppleTV. Maybe the set comes with one in it....then 2 years from now when there's a better AppleTV, you just swap in a new one....the life of the TV should be longer than the product cycle life of the AppleTV. Then the TV remote can also control ATV functions.

I see Fwink! above beat me to the same concept....just like "Made for iPod....it could be Made for ATV"

ljocampo
Jun 21, 2011, 07:05 PM
There may be a market for apple to sell such an integrated TV to, but not my house. I don't mind buying a new $99 AppleTV every other year when the hardware needs refreshing (faster chips, more memory, faster video processing), but I'm not going to buy a new 52" TV screen every other year. And I don't want to get stuck when the technology is changing so fast each year.

Jim

You are thinking like Apple is making another computer. We're talking TVs. They'll be black like most of the rest to fit living room decor and they will be firmware upgradeable made to last well beyond the typical TV life span of today. Apple's Cinema displays have much longer revision cycles, so why do you think Apple won't do the same for TVs.

Granted it'll be a niche market but Apple can compete in it. They will use all their hardware technologies including an iPod Touch as a remote and no one is better at making software interfaces. Add in iCloud, some good sound system, and people will be knocking at their door.

LittleChief
Jun 21, 2011, 07:09 PM
There are some valid concerns regarding a 'real' Apple TV, things like pricing, upgrade cycles etc but the one thing that occurs to me as a strong incentive when reading the rumours is the fact that the TV market is in such bad shape. Just like the pre-iPhone phone market it needs a visionary/focused company like Apple to step in and lead from the front & show people how to make the whole thing work.

That is my strongest 'proof' that Apple could be cooking something new behind the scenes. Apple's TV would likely carry features from other product lines but there's bound to be something completely game changing in there which will make their approach make complete sense & it's anybody's guess right now as to what that is.

Without blabbering on too much there's a second reason that would probably drive Apple to figure this market out.. Ecosystems (content lock in opportunities) & Product Synergy. There are strong packages of hardware & content out there (TVs, Set top boxes, Game Consoles, Services such as Netflix) & if you look carefully you can see that these devices & services could threaten Apple's ecosystem in the longer run.

If Apple tie up the loose end by addressing the living room properly then there's no reason to switch to other manufacturers for their hardware, content & services. You're investment in Apple content will pay off as a user & that keeps you loyal to the Apple ecosystem & the TV becomes another device in the chain (iPod > iPhone > iPad > Mac > TV).

With an Apple TV all bases are covered… or are they? (iCar) :p


iOS Powered Apple TV:

* A5/A6 Processor
* LED 1080p Screen
* 'Magic Wand' Remote Control (use gestures to control & interact with the TV) OR a built-in gesture recognition camera similar to the Kinect technology.
* Full iPad, iPhone & iPod Interactivity
* App Store Content
* iTunes Content
* FaceTime HD
* Notifications
* Games (Magic Wand + iPad could mimic the Wii/Wii U)
* AirPlay
* Photo Booth
* Integrated iPod/iTunes Jukebox
* iCloud Syncing

42+ inch - $1,999

mac*jedi*g
Jun 21, 2011, 07:18 PM
Well, Apple certainly has enough capital to take on this new venture in visual hardware. But I wonder who are they going to get the parts from, perform their R&D, and manufacture this item for them? Certainly not Samsung at this point! :D

If they plan to do this themselves then it will be on the level of "reinventing the cellphone..." --- such as they did with the iPhone.

Full WIFI TV, for all!

iMJustAGuy
Jun 21, 2011, 07:20 PM
So, let me get this straight, they want to buy some Samsung TVs, and stick a label with an Apple over the 'Samsung'?

Right.

Obviously you are not too knowledgable on these things work. MANY companies use samsung parts and panels for their products. You know Best Buy's house brand Insignia uses 100% samsung parts including the panel. I used to have a 55 LED by them that was having sound issues and when the geek squad came to repair it we were both surprised to see so.

hitekalex
Jun 21, 2011, 07:22 PM
What are the chances of an Apple TV being DLNA compatible? I'd say slim.

DLNA? Surely you jest. Apple won't touch that garbage with a 10 foot pole.

ratzzo
Jun 21, 2011, 07:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why Cook... You don't just "blow" Netflix away ;)

academytim
Jun 21, 2011, 07:26 PM
As much as I love Apple products, I don't see myself ever going for one of these. As others have mentioned, the product cycle for an AppleTV should be much shorter then a Television. I have no issue replacing an aging AppleTV every couple of years with the latest/greatest version at $100, however I'm not replacing the whole TV every couple of years. It doesn't make sense to have this built in when its so inexpensive to add it to any TV you want.

hitekalex
Jun 21, 2011, 07:26 PM
I will bet that their next big product (within the next few years) will be a 38" - 45" iPad/AppleTV hybrid. It will be a very thin touch screen, and stream your music, movies and TV shows. You heard it here first!!!! :cool:

38"-45" touchscreen as a consumer product? Yeah, it's coming soon. Right after jetpack and flying car hit your local Costco.

liavman
Jun 21, 2011, 07:31 PM
Hope the gross margins on these things are in the 40% range.

When iPhone was released, SJ had the equation: Phone + iPod = $499.00 This thing does much much more, but we are going to charge only $499.00, no premium for the extra features.

What I am thinking about are along these lines.

So, for this Apple branded TV, What is that equation?
And what big problems in TV watching it solves?
What new things it brings in to make the quality of life better?
If it runs Apps, does it have access to other parts of TV, like the way iPhone apps have access to various sensors, camera etc. If so, what are those which the current Apple TV does not have access to.
What meta data about shows and videos that can be synced to several devices including TV that can be useful?
etc.

Slurpy2k8
Jun 21, 2011, 07:34 PM
I know you're all mocking this rumor and concept, but use a little bit of imagination, and youd realize it might have potential. This is Apple we're talking about.

People 'get' what a TV does and what it is. What they dont get, is a little black box that might do X or Y. Apple doesn't even have to sell them at a profit- they can break even, the business model being making money on the future content that is sold, etc. Imagine advertising the TV in such a way to show the integration with iPod, iPhones, iPads. Hundreds of millions of people have these devices, so there's a market. Imagine turning on the TV, signing in with your Apple ID, and boom, all your photos/vids/etc are downloaded/streamed from iCloud. Imagine ads where the individual is controlling it with their iOS device, using multitouch etc, and seamlessly moving content from the device to the TV. By pricing competitively, people in the market for a TV might think 'why not' and just get the Apple branded one- even if they DONT have apple devices. In this case, it could be a motivator to add to the ecosystem, which at the end of the day is Apple's goal. To create synergy with their products, so as owning another will get you added benefits and integration. If they competitively sell an Apple-branded TV- it WILL sell-a lot.

FlameofAnor
Jun 21, 2011, 07:42 PM
I would have to disagree with you there. You can not beat a Plasma TV in regards to refresh rate or contrast ratio. The new LED-LCD's come very very close, but they are typically much more expensive. LCD's are cheaper then Plasmas but don't even come close. Yes, I have all three types of TVs in my home. A 60" Plasma in the living room, a 37" LCD in the Master Bedroom, a 32" LCD in the Guest Bedroom, and a 24" LED-LCD in my son's Bedroom. The best looking TV in the house is the Plasma by far, and not just because of the size.

I have to agree....... plasma has a more natural picture, better contrast ratios (by far), and no motion blur issues at all. The only downside is the glossier screens and the increased power consumption. Screen burn-in is a minor issue, since the newer plasmas all have good anti burn-in features.

LED sets look unrealistic to me..... the whites are too bright, and bluish in cast. They have better contrast than the standard LCDs, but their picture isn't as realistic as a good plasma set.

toddybody
Jun 21, 2011, 07:48 PM
I envision something like the Panasonic Z series. Beautiful set, incredibly expensive.

http://www.buytavern.com/images/auction/large/801panasonic_z1_plasma_tv.jpg

rdlink
Jun 21, 2011, 07:54 PM
Plasmas use too much power. I would expect if Apple did to a television, it would be LED to reduce energy consumption. I don't think they will do a television though.

I think they should just license AirPlay instead. It would probably make more sense to offer AirPlay in a receiver though, instead of a TV. Then the signal would just get pumped out to any type of TV you want. Just a thought.

Apple already licenses AirPlay. And there are receiver manufacturers selling them. Denon and Pioneer are a couple. I hear rumors that Yamaha either has one, or is on the verge of rolling it.

76ShovelHead
Jun 21, 2011, 07:59 PM
What would really sell this thing is the ability to wirelessly connect to a Mac Mini so you could also have a full on computer, even if its in another room. Touch gestures via a Magic Trackpad as a remote. Perhaps give it a the iPad version of iOS tweaked for the Magic Trackpad and bigger screen format. The only scary thing about this would be the price. Think about it, the ACD sells for 1000 dollars nevermind adding 15+ inches (42' screen) and iOS! They'd probably try and sell it for as much as a Mac Pro!

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 21, 2011, 08:02 PM
hopefully they use plasma, lcd and led lcd just don't compare imo.

Better have really good picture quality since i'm sure it's going to be fairly expensive.

50" no more than $1600.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 21, 2011, 08:03 PM
-voice control
-video recording
-cover flow on video iPod
Apple does stuff like this all the time.


You forgot about MMS being block from the first gen iPhone.

thatisme
Jun 21, 2011, 08:09 PM
46 inch iMac, 50 in iMac and 60 inch iMac. Serves the media pc market well, can integrate iTunes and AirPlay. And, it would be vesa wall mountable. Also implementing your cable box through a software upgrade, so no need for a standalone box.

Optheduim
Jun 21, 2011, 08:12 PM
Rumors? with all of those labs in there, i betcha a $1,000 they are already doing it!

However my guess it's gonna be a set top box. yeah its a pain in the butt to have to make diff chips or w/e for each cable company but they already proven they'll do it (iphone/originally former att exclusive), and will probably do it again! (plz plz fios exclusiv 1st!)

...w/ iphone/ipad integration :cool:

trip1ex
Jun 21, 2011, 08:14 PM
Not excited.

Just think it would be too expensive for my taste with questionable gain.

And would rather replace a $100 ATV when the tech changes rather than a whole tv.

Would nice to have one remote instead of 2, nicer menus and easier to use options and decent speakers!

ezekielrage_99
Jun 21, 2011, 08:26 PM
And just after I've bought a 46" Sharp Quattron :rolleyes:

teejaysplace24
Jun 21, 2011, 08:36 PM
Has Apple ever - in the history of their company - been satisified with rebranding ANYTHING? Didn't think so. Integrating the iTunes store into existing TVs? That's feasible. But sticking their precious logo on anything that's not been mercurially "designed by Apple in California"? Doubt it'll ever happen while Jobs lives.

Prallethrin
Jun 21, 2011, 08:37 PM
Apple might not be interested in selling it's own TVs, but instead I think they are looking to license AppleTV out to TV makers that are interested - probably with strict conditions of course.

Samsung is out, they have their own smartTV thing going on. Not to mention the considerable amount of bad blood between the two companies now with the lawsuit.

Sony is unlikely, now we can't rule it out - Sony doesn't weird things sometimes (the PS3 can playback WMV and PSV has support for MS Skype). But still it's unlikely.

That leaves everyone else. Sharp, Toshiba, Panasonic, Hitachi ...

AppleTV as a separate "add-on" just isn't "hitting it big", but as a "feature" of a TV it will probably fare better.

iSee
Jun 21, 2011, 08:38 PM
It's hard to see why this would happen.

I can't believe Apple would just stick an ATV in a TV.

I guess they could create some new kind of TV/computer/tablet hybrid that goes beyond an ATV update. I don't see anyone clamoring for this though.

This rumor seems like junk -- same as before.

the vj
Jun 21, 2011, 08:43 PM
Rumors? with all of those labs in there, i betcha a $1,000 they are already doing it!
...w/ iphone/ipad integration :cool:

My friend, back in 1998 when the mac were beige, I was studying multimedia and I got to dig into many serious companies and back then they had technology still no available.

In fact, Philips used to sell a 3D TV glasses free back in 2008.

There are awesome inventions but many of them does not have a market and they are kept in showrooms or in labs.

kcgil
Jun 21, 2011, 08:51 PM
I might agree that Plasmas in general provide a better picture in darken rooms. But given Apples experience with LED-LCDs, there greater performance in bright rooms, lower weight and being more eco-friendly I would hope Apple goes in the LED-LCD direction. It would be a mistake to bring out a Plasma.
Now given Apple's innovation maybe they can solve the OLED issues for large TVs. Now that would be the ticket.

*LTD*
Jun 21, 2011, 08:56 PM
I envision something like the Panasonic Z series. Beautiful set, incredibly expensive.

Image (http://www.buytavern.com/images/auction/large/801panasonic_z1_plasma_tv.jpg)

WOW. A Panasonic Plasma set that doesn't resemble something from four years ago. I swear all their Plasmas are positively ugly, save perhaps for the G-Series with 3D. Their LCD sets look great. Note that I'm not talking about picture quality here.

Helluva price tag. That Plasma better eat every LCD for breakfast. Hard to beat Sony's Brava line and Samsung's higher end LCDs. Sony especially. They've really nailed LCD/LED tech. Besides, LCDs/LEDs have caught up to and in many cases surpassed plasma sets.

It's hard to see why this would happen.

I can't believe Apple would just stick an ATV in a TV.

Why?

All they did was make a giant iPhone and look what happened: Revolution is what's for dinner.

This is Apple. They do something ridiculously simple and obvious - almost too easy - and the results tend to be game-changing.

yadmonkey
Jun 21, 2011, 08:59 PM
Does anyone really think Apple cares enough about picture quality to go with plasma after their most recent AppleTV didn't even do 1080p?

If Apple enters the TV market, it'll look sleek, it'll be thin, and it will certainly be an LED LCD display. But that's a big if.

And knowing Apple it will have a single mini displayport for connectivity. (some sarcasm intended)

*LTD*
Jun 21, 2011, 09:02 PM
Does anyone really think Apple cares enough about picture quality to go with plasma after their most recent AppleTV didn't even do 1080p?

If Apple enters the TV market, it'll look sleek, it'll be thin, and it will certainly be an LED LCD display. But that's a big if.

Why would *anyone* bother to go with Plasma these days?

zombierunner
Jun 21, 2011, 09:03 PM
the apple logo makes anything look good

*LTD*
Jun 21, 2011, 09:03 PM
the apple logo makes anything look good

Because you know what to expect when you use it.

yadmonkey
Jun 21, 2011, 09:04 PM
Why would *anyone* bother to go with Plasma these days?

A lot of people prefer plasma for movies and games.

*LTD*
Jun 21, 2011, 09:06 PM
A lot of people prefer plasma for movies and games.

The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.

yadmonkey
Jun 21, 2011, 09:08 PM
The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.

I agree and chose an LCD myself, but I'm amazed at how many people still argue vehemently for plasma.

AidenShaw
Jun 21, 2011, 09:10 PM
But sticking their precious logo on anything that's not been mercurially "designed by Apple in California"? Doubt it'll ever happen while Jobs lives.

Considering the unfortunate situation with Jobs' health, that's either a cruel prediction or was written without thinking about his personal situation.

orfeas0
Jun 21, 2011, 09:11 PM
apple can't win the tv market. apple can't even enter the tv market!
If you're gonna ask why, just compare those 2 products:
Apple cinema display 27"= 1000$
Sony bravia 46" = 900$.
19 more inches, and it's not only a monitor but a TV. And it's even cheaper.
If apple made a 32" tv they would charge it like 1100$. Who would buy that??
Or think if they made a 46" tv... Who will spend 3k$ on a tv??

MacTheSpoon
Jun 21, 2011, 09:16 PM
I'm glad if it turns out to be Samsung; I like their TVs the best. And I'd be excited to see what Steve Jobs' demanding standards would mean for the TV's performance. However, I've seen this Apple brand TV rumor so many, many times without result that I doubt it's true.

bearcatrp
Jun 21, 2011, 09:18 PM
Don't think it will work. My 55 inch Sony has like 30 different icons to view movies, listen to music, etc.. Just have to hook it up to the Internet. As for blowing Netflix away, doubtful. Apple must be bored and looking for something else to try conquering. They should make the ATV better before trying this.

StephenCampbell
Jun 21, 2011, 09:23 PM
I just have to share something my brother just said about this. We were chatting via iChat, and he says "I don't want to know about apples tv. I just don't. It's going to have ears. It will have ears. This is exactly what steve jobs loves. He's going to come to the keynote and say "look at those ears, aren't they gorgeous?"

I personally found it absolutely hilarious! He did admit later that he was exaggerating a bit. :D

Michael CM1
Jun 21, 2011, 09:27 PM
Samsung has their own app store built into their televisions, complete with Netflix app, etc.

For them to completely abandon that in favor of an Apple pairing... well, it just seems unlikely.

Apple selling televisions doesn't exactly sound likely either. And the only way Apple is going to put a dent in Netflix's progress over the last couple years is to offer all-you-can-eat subscriptions through iTunes. That won't happen. A lot of this stuff blowing in the wind is likely bunk.

Why can't there be an Apple TV app for such televisions? I have a brand effin' new LED TV from Samsung with WiFi. Why can't Apple write an app that does the iTunes-type stuff and AirPlay through my existing TV instead of wanting me to buy another TV, which I sure as heck won't for a while.

You have to replace computers and phones every few years because they get outdated. Televisions usually will go for a decade. They keep getting better, but HD was out in 2000.

tcampb01
Jun 21, 2011, 09:35 PM
No way I'd touch it... and I own most Apple products.

But that's EXACTLY why I wouldn't touch it. I own the original Apple TV as well as the "new" Apple TV. The original Apple TV is basically a special edition of the Mac Mini designed to deal with the TV content and not expose a Mac OS X desktop. There are people who have modded the Apple TV so it just boots OS X. There's absolutely no reason why the original Apple TV (which costs 3-4 times as much as the 'new' Apple TV) can't have all the features of the 'new' Apple TV.

Essentially Apple abandoned the platform, refused to issue any more software updates for it, and then expect their users to all rush out and buy the new product when there's nothing wrong with the old product... it just needed a software update to make it fully compatible.

Considering that a TV should last more than 2 years... I think you'd be crazy to buy an TV with integrated "Apple TV" knowing that Apple will abandon the thing on a whim and leave all their customers with a really expensive paper weight.

No... I'll be buying a TV that is _only_ a TV and I'll be connecting a separate non-integrated set top box.

TSE
Jun 21, 2011, 09:37 PM
Is anyone else here a little worried that Apple is starting to become 90's Apple where they lost focus, picking too many battles at the same time?

skier777
Jun 21, 2011, 09:54 PM
You can buy the Apple 46" TV for $2999 or your can buy the same Samsung 46inch for 1199, an appletv box for $99 and a bottle of superglue for $.99

MacAddict1978
Jun 21, 2011, 10:04 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

That's a rather poor assessment. The current Apple TV has sold more until than the old versions combined since launch. Though, not that those were selling like hot cakes or anything either. Though, just because a version of IOS operates that Apple TV, it's rather silly to try to compare it to the sale of iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches.

I agree though... add more features. An option to buy movies and shows (downloaded to your mac) from the Apple TV would be a great start, and more 3rd party content like the Roku box. I'm fine with streaming from my computer, but a DVR function is what it really needs. Too many boxes

Is anyone else here a little worried that Apple is starting to become 90's Apple where they lost focus, picking too many battles at the same time?

Yes and no. No, because I think they can pull this all off. Yes, because Apple still keeps things trim on a staffing end. For example, delaying the last 2 versions of the Mac OS because they were behind with the latest version of IOS, so they pulled the mac os team to work on that. They need to dedicate the right number of resources to the projects they have. It's not like they don't have the money to grow. This is where I think things get botched, like the new version of Final Cut Pro. Released a little bit premature, and well after an update should have been released... they can blame it on being a re-write, but I think the team working on it was short on resources.

Rad99004
Jun 21, 2011, 10:17 PM
"blow Netflix and all those other guys away" by bundling Apple TV + iTunes inside physical television sets"

Yes, nothing can blow away Netflix and all those guys than a very expensive TV with iTunes integrated.


Oh, yes, is game changing. It's more convenient than having a TV + an Apple TV

Its all in the software; in this case programming. Unless Apple launches a Netflix/Redbox service with prices to match I don't see anything going anywhere. As it is compare how long it takes to launch a movie on iTunes compared to Netflix on a slower connection. That alone is hurting iTunes the most.

AppleScruff1
Jun 21, 2011, 10:24 PM
They can copy from Samsung and then sue them.

klrobinson999
Jun 21, 2011, 10:25 PM
I think it's a great idea and i'd buy one. It's like the final piece of my Apple ecosystem. No reason why it couldn't come with SSD storage, obviously wi-fi, and even TV-based web.

Bernard SG
Jun 21, 2011, 10:26 PM
IMHO, Apple's next move after iPod, iPhone and iPad can't be anything else but a TV, more exactly a multifunction living-room hub: a giant iPad featuring the functions of WiFi base station, AirPlay, perhaps a DVD drive, and obviously, access to the iTunes ecosystem.
However, I don't see it happening as soon as 2011. Apple isn't going to launch it before they get sweet deals with a couple leading cable/satellite operators and Hollywood.
Designing the product itself is not the hardest part. It's all about the content and business-model.
It also makes sense that Samsung would be the best choice for a hardware partner in such a project.
Actually, I have a theory that the intent behind the current legal battle Apple is leading against Samsung is to sway the latter away from Android in order to make Samsung an alternate outlet for the iOS ecosystem.

skellener
Jun 21, 2011, 10:29 PM
The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.There's nothing wrong with Plasmas. They look great. They work perfectly fine. They suck a lot of juice though. If you are energy conscience they are not the best buy. If that is not something you care about, you can find great deals on them. Apple would probably never do a plasma TV though.

MacAddict1978
Jun 21, 2011, 10:29 PM
The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.

I agree and chose an LCD myself, but I'm amazed at how many people still argue vehemently for plasma.

You do realize that plasma sets have also made gains to right? They have updated the tech behind them ever year just as LCDs. There are still advantages and disadvantages for both. None of the old shortcomings exist in plasmas either (ghosting, burn in, etc.) and they were always superior with black leves and refresh rates. Some of the new Panasonics have gotten recommendations on tech sites over some of the LED's. It just depends.

Ijustfarted
Jun 21, 2011, 10:31 PM
Lol hell no would I buy that

NJL6705
Jun 21, 2011, 10:40 PM
The fact that a Samsung tv is pictured makes me laugh.

CLWelch
Jun 21, 2011, 10:46 PM
38"-45" touchscreen as a consumer product? Yeah, it's coming soon. Right after jetpack and flying car hit your local Costco.
And most people watch their TVs from an arm's length, so a touchscreen makes perfect sense.

emaja
Jun 21, 2011, 10:56 PM
38"-45" touchscreen as a consumer product? Yeah, it's coming soon. Right after jetpack and flying car hit your local Costco.

And most people watch their TVs from an arm's length, so a touchscreen makes perfect sense.

Missed the :cool: did you?

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 21, 2011, 11:07 PM
apple can't win the tv market. apple can't even enter the tv market!
If you're gonna ask why, just compare those 2 products:
Apple cinema display 27"= 1000$
Sony bravia 46" = 900$.
19 more inches, and it's not only a monitor but a TV. And it's even cheaper.
If apple made a 32" tv they would charge it like 1100$. Who would buy that??
Or think if they made a 46" tv... Who will spend 3k$ on a tv??

The ACD is an IPS monitor, not an LCD or Plasma television set.

MacinDoc
Jun 21, 2011, 11:15 PM
Apple doesn't even have to sell them at a profit- they can break even, the business model being making money on the future content that is sold, etc. Imagine advertising the TV in such a way to show the integration with iPod, iPhones, iPads. Hundreds of millions of people have these devices, so there's a market. Imagine turning on the TV, signing in with your Apple ID, and boom, all your photos/vids/etc are downloaded/streamed from iCloud. Imagine ads where the individual is controlling it with their iOS device, using multitouch etc, and seamlessly moving content from the device to the TV. By pricing competitively, people in the market for a TV might think 'why not' and just get the Apple branded one- even if they DONT have apple devices. In this case, it could be a motivator to add to the ecosystem, which at the end of the day is Apple's goal. To create synergy with their products, so as owning another will get you added benefits and integration. If they competitively sell an Apple-branded TV- it WILL sell-a lot.
Sorry, but selling things at cost never has been and never will be Apple's business model. Apple markets its wares as premium products and prices them accordingly, generally with a 40% mark-up to cover the costs of development and marketing. This strategy simply won't work in the TV market (there is no TV equivalent of OS X versus Windows Vista, in order for Apple to get traction from product differentiation).

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 21, 2011, 11:50 PM
As long as I can jailbreak it and install XBMC on it, I will be golden.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 21, 2011, 11:52 PM
Apple selling televisions doesn't exactly sound likely either. And the only way Apple is going to put a dent in Netflix's progress over the last couple years is to offer all-you-can-eat subscriptions through iTunes. That won't happen. A lot of this stuff blowing in the wind is likely bunk.

What does Netflix "all you can eat" subscription get you?

Megashark Vs Godzilla version 1 through 10?

Their streaming library is a joke.
They need content providers.

Apple needs to move from the rental model to the ownership model to be golden. The "all you can eat" model is not attractive to the studios hence the lack of content on Nexflix.

HMFIC03
Jun 22, 2011, 12:29 AM
It would be more likely that Apple would integrate A.TV into its Airport wireless routers, but apparently that did not happen today.

baker5721
Jun 22, 2011, 01:41 AM
The hardware is no problem for Apple, I don't even see how that's a point of discussion. The problem I'm having is deciding what exactly this device would do. Sure a lot of people are dropping cable subscriptions, but I honestly doubt that's the case for the majority of apple users. Most of the time spent in my living room is watching television, watching netflix, and playing Xbox (in that order). So how could an apple branded product enhance this? I can't fathom a way that it would, but I'll try. Let's pretend this TV could replace your cable/satellite set top box. That would be awesome, but it would require all (albeit it's a small number) of the cable providers to hop on board. Another idea I've been toying with in my head is an integrated slingbox type service. Kind of obvious that ipad/iphone owners would love this feature. I think those two features I described could make this compelling to a lot of users, and then the hardware could sell it. Something I've been wanting to see for a long time is a television with a good set of speakers. And by good I don't mean audiophile, but a television that I could stand (or perhaps enjoy) streaming my itunes library through. Again though, I'm just speculating and I doubt we'll ever see this product. Certainly not this year.

CplBadboy
Jun 22, 2011, 01:56 AM
Using Samsung panels??? Hope not! Ive just returned 2 46" D7000's because the LED light bleed and clouding of those screens was just too much. Horrendous quality for what was a lot of money.

By all means make a TV with Apple TV but the only reliable manufacturer and the one who could only deliver the outstanding quality would be Panasonic. Since Pioneers departure from the industry a few years back Pannys are now king of screens with the latest screens the VT and GT series as good as the old Pioneer Kuro.

Whilst LED panel are all happy happy flowery fancy dancy environmentally friendly and Samsung make them look nice, the viewing angles are terrible and the colours over saturated. Thats why you dont see Samsungs demoing Apple TV in store.

felixen
Jun 22, 2011, 02:12 AM
and now they incorporate the Kinect-like technology they worked with a while back. That would be so cool!!!

Otto J
Jun 22, 2011, 02:15 AM
OK, first off, I'll warn you that this will be a long post, with nothing other than my personal speculations on an Apple TV set... So, here goes:

I'd like to share my opinions on why it makes sense for Apple to make a TV, and how they could pull it off. Probably not this year, maybe not the next, but at some point I believe they will. Let's look at why:

People are saying that "it's a different market", "Apple don't have experience in the TV market", etc. Well, 10 years ago Apple didn't have experience in the music market. 5 years ago they didn't have experience in the mobile phone market. That didn't stop them from revolutionizing both. If they see a market, lack of experience won't stop them - on the contrary, they will use their lack of experience to their own force, and create something that isn't plagued with "but that's how we've always done" thinking like their competitors.

But why would Apple want to join the tv market? Well, for one, they are running low on markets to revolutionize. They already made the one-button phone. Zero-button phone won't be a revolution - simply put, they won't be able to revolutionize the same market twice - which is why with the iPad, they created a new market, instead of revolutionizing an already existing market. What Apple does best, is to look at a market where something is missing, or just isn't working properly, and deliver what's missing. I believe something is missing in the TV market (and I was actually involved in a project that never made it t market, that was supposed to deliver just that).

Then some people are saying that they won't be able to compete with the low price points of many tv's today. Well, they won't have to. Apple don't make low end computers, they don't make low end phones - they won't make low-end TV's either. All major manufacturers have 3000$ TV's on the market. Apple need to compete with those, not with 399$ sets. Sure, some will pass, just like some pass on Mac computers because of price. But I'm quite sure that there are plenty left behind to create a profitable market.

What Apple have done in the past, especially with the iPhone, is to look at the market, point out all the things that are wrong with it, and then try to change that. Phones are cluttered with buttons? We'll get rid of buttons. CD's are a hassle, they get scratched, you never have them where you need them? We'll get rid of CD's. Etc etc. There are lots of things in the TV market that Apple could get rid of. In no particular order:

1: Cumbersome setup, partly because of increasingly varying distribution channels.

2: Cluttered menu systems. Who the f... needs three different noise reduction settings, four different sharpness controls, 3D color management (that don't make sense without measuring equipment anyway), etc?

3: Poor image quality. Yeah, I know, you're all very happy with your tv's, and think they deliver great pictures. But they DON'T! Yours might be less crappy than the other ones, but compared to the quality that today's technology COULD deliver if handled properly, almost all tv's are complete crap, especially if you haven't had it professionally calibrated (but even so, there are still major improvements to be had, even with todays tech). You simply don't know what you're missing.

4: Poor audio quality. Hallelujah, my new tv is 7 mm thick. Yeah, and so is the audio. If image quality is poor, audio quality REALLY suck.

5: Poor remote controls. Almost all TV's on the market have crappy, lightweight and cluttered remotes.

One area they WON'T change much however, is design. There are lots of options today that are slim, unobtrusive and stylish designs. If Samsung's TV is 7 mm, it won't change much if Apple's is 5 mm.

However, let's look at what can be done. 1: Setup. Why do people assume that an Apple TV set would be an ATV in a display? Surely, we should consider the ATV as a "learning curve", an Apple TV set would be a redesign, with a user interface designed specifically for that purpose, not just an ATV and a display. And of course, all of this will not happen until Apple have made deals with enough content providers, that they will be able to deliver the content needed, without the need for cable, sattelite services etc. These deals are imho the only thing holding Apple back.

2: Cluttered menu systems. You don't need picture controls if the image looks good, you don't need audio controls if the audio sounds good, you don't need tuner setup if there is no tuner. Hell, why do we even need a menu system? Think outside of the box, people!

3: Image quality. This actually goes hand in hand with the lack of picture controls: The best possible picture quality is delivering exactly what was created in the studio, period (plus auto-adjusing brightness based on ambient light). We don't need sharpness, noise reduction, color controls etc, we have control over the source material, remember? And Apple do know what they're doing in the studio's - most of them are using their software! Sure, some people will say "but I want to decide for myself how much color I want in the picture". No, you don't. I've been calibrating TV's for a living for several years, and I've _not once_ shown a near-accurate picture to a customer, and NOT have the customer say that the picture looks stunning. Accurate pictures will appeal to everyone - as long as the set doesn't stand among 50 "screamers" from Samsung, Sony etc with "dynamic" settings. Shown by itself, an accurate picture rocks, and it shouldn't be neccessary to calibrate the tv, to get there - it's a manufacturer decision.

4: Audio quality. Assuming that they can get away with not being as slim as the competition, Apple should be able to deliver very decent audio quality. Remember the Tomlinson Holman hiring?

5: Remote control. Oh, you must have seen this coming. The reason we don't need a menu system, is that the menu system is on the remote. We don't need no stinkin' remote, we need an iPad! Flicking through TV guides and movie catalogues, maybe even watching a trailer or two on your iPad, while your spouse is watching the news on the TV uninterrupted of your browsing - how can you beat that? Sure, it will work with iPhone or iPod touch, and sure you can probably use the Apple remote which is probably what will be included if you really want to skimp out, but the iPad is really what completes the Apple TV ecosystem, and changes the experience completely.

To sum up: iTunes delivery system + great out-of-the-box audio/video quality + simple setup + iPad control system = one very cool TV. Even if it IS two inches thick to make room for speakers.

And yes, with apps and the right hardware, you could get some of the way with current offerings from different companies, but noone makes it as accessible as Apple could -provided they get the content deals in place, of course.

And the kicker: No apps. Yes, I'm serious. Apps on TV's don't work. Apps on iPads do. Why would you want to look at the weather on your tv, when you can do it right on your iPad? Much more convenient.

Using Samsung panels??? Hope not! Ive just returned 2 46" D7000's because the LED light bleed and clouding of those screens was just too much. Horrendous quality for what was a lot of money.


Samsung makes good panels and bad panels. For some reason, they don't seem to like putting the good panels into their own tv sets. The panels used by for instance Bang & Olufsen are great panels (although B&O have made choices in the picture processing that I don't quite agree with). A lot of people seem to think that putting Samsung panels in, or even having Samsung manufacture the whole set, equals just slapping an Apple logo on the front of an existing Samsung TV set. It doesn't work that way.

BTW, Samsung don't need to "give up" on their own TV strategies, to deliver parts to Apple. They WILL however copy-paste everything they can from an Apple TV set, whether they actually deliver the hardware or not. That's how they work.

captain kaos
Jun 22, 2011, 02:21 AM
I still haven't got onto the LCD TV wagon, (i know!) and i have thought about the apple tv (but done nothing due to said tv set), but this could be interesting.

If you could have ATV and your itunes within the same set, if it had wi fi so you could stream said library over the net and you didn't have to remortgage you house to buy one, i'd be in on this!

KingCrimson
Jun 22, 2011, 02:50 AM
What does Netflix "all you can eat" subscription get you?

Megashark Vs Godzilla version 1 through 10?

Their streaming library is a joke.
They need content providers.

Apple needs to move from the rental model to the ownership model to be golden. The "all you can eat" model is not attractive to the studios hence the lack of content on Nexflix.

That's ridiculously ignorant. Do you just hate any Apple competitor that much to make up lies?

macnisse
Jun 22, 2011, 03:06 AM
Sounds interesting, but I'll stick to the Mac for now and a 60 inch LG with all the goodies (not 3D) :D

rovex
Jun 22, 2011, 03:35 AM
Using Samsung panels??? Hope not! Ive just returned 2 46" D7000's because the LED light bleed and clouding of those screens was just too much. Horrendous quality for what was a lot of money.

By all means make a TV with Apple TV but the only reliable manufacturer and the one who could only deliver the outstanding quality would be Panasonic. Since Pioneers departure from the industry a few years back Pannys are now king of screens with the latest screens the VT and GT series as good as the old Pioneer Kuro.

Whilst LED panel are all happy happy flowery fancy dancy environmentally friendly and Samsung make them look nice, the viewing angles are terrible and the colours over saturated. Thats why you dont see Samsungs demoing Apple TV in store.

I have a Kuro and it's fanatastic however additionally i own the Philips 21:9 cinema LED tv and i'd say it trumps it. The black levels are almost the same but in terms of contrast and general colours just pop immensely which i prefer.

I will go to Panasonic once Ultra HD hits the market, until then i'm happy with the Pioneer. I do agree with you on Samsung i will never by expensive hardware from them, very poor from my experience.

ArcaneDevice
Jun 22, 2011, 04:20 AM
"Subsidized set-top boxes have squashed innovation because no one wants to pay for separate boxes...ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months. "

Almost every single television manufacturer is releasing a lineup that includes built-in wifi, streaming music and video and internet content. They all have their own content portals and app-stores from multiple providers.

Netflix and Vudu are all the pay video content a television really needs. Netflix for cheap access to low quality video and Vudu for rental access to the best streaming HD on the market.

Even remotes are being redesigned with this content in mind as they become dual-sided keyboards.

It's going to take a lot more than for Apple to jam an AppleTV into a television and call it a "game changer." Especially if they aren't even assembling the sets themselves.

Why would I buy a television from Apple, instead of manufacturers who have been doing this for decades and are already ahead with the streaming content portal offering more choice and services?

If you want to pay more for just for aesthetics there's always B&O.

ArcaneDevice
Jun 22, 2011, 04:26 AM
What does Netflix "all you can eat" subscription get you?

20 million paying subscribers and the dominant position in streaming entertainment.

Shivetya
Jun 22, 2011, 04:47 AM
Other than exploiting their name I don't see how they can enter the TV market and stand out. What is next? Apple branded trucks by Ford?

On a serious note, the margins on small wide screen TVs are not large. Plasma televisions are mostly low end now. Do they really think built in Google TV is a threat?

Just make the Apple TV appliance support 1080p, have sufficient disk space operate as a DVR, and cache entire 1080p movies. The bonus would be for Apple TV to support DVD (specifically Blu-Ray) allowing consumers to have a one device solution. I don't need Blu-Ray on my computer but when it comes to internet enabled devices why would I want an Apple TV when my blu-ray player already does the net and allows me to use NetFlix and Hulu?

colmaclean
Jun 22, 2011, 05:03 AM
DLNA? Surely you jest. Apple won't touch that garbage with a 10 foot pole.

Is that the same "garbage" with which I can stream HD video across my home network from my NAS to my TV? With no additional hardware?

Guess I better throw it in the nearest skip.

CplBadboy
Jun 22, 2011, 05:39 AM
Samsung makes good panels and bad panels.....


And thats the problem! Poor QC and unreliable. Panasonic make excellent panels. Thats the difference.

CplBadboy
Jun 22, 2011, 05:45 AM
I have a Kuro and it's fanatastic however additionally i own the Philips 21:9 cinema LED tv and i'd say it trumps it. The black levels are almost the same but in terms of contrast and general colours just pop immensely which i prefer.

I will go to Panasonic once Ultra HD hits the market, until then i'm happy with the Pioneer. I do agree with you on Samsung i will never by expensive hardware from them, very poor from my experience.

Rovex,

Should have mentioned Philips as an alternative also! thats was my first LCD way back in 2005. its still going strong today. I look at that 21:9 and think to myself....One day Ill have it if I win the lotto! I envy you! For now its a trusty Panny 46GT30B. Do miss those Pioneers though.

Giuly
Jun 22, 2011, 06:31 AM
IIRC, you guys have your CableCard now, too. But unless Apple is going to bring IPTV along with it, this will be a DVB-S/2, DVB-C/2, DVB-T/2, ISDB-S, ISDB-C, ISDB-T, ISDB-Tb, DMB-T, S-DMB tower-of-babelish affair. Dumping what ever a set costs on a DVB-C model and then moving to another home and finding oneself with no cable provider and the need to buy a new DVB-S2 set is not nice. If I'd have to buy a separate TV receiver anyways, Apple's TV becomes even less interesting.
Shipping with DVB-C/S2/T combined and two CI+ slot is nothing new, though. :rolleyes:

If however Apple decides to bring IPTV in the iCloud along with it that allows me to officially watch Letterman on CBS if I pay some $5/month for all US network television, it gets interesting. This is actually what I'm waiting for and would legitimate the price of an Apple TV.

And dear CBS, don't even bother. The highest court in this country already ruled that if I can't receive a certain TV broadcast by paying for it at all, you cannot be punished for "illegal reception" - even if you crack PayTV encryption which that particular case included. They care, too.
http://m.UploadEdit.com/b94/74718088.gif

I, as always, fail to see the problem of broadcasting i.e. CBS worldwide. It's not like L.A. doesn't have different ads than NYC, and that for decades. Or like you couldn't watch CBS Monday/Thursday night series (delayed and in crappy translations) all over the world already.

jonnysods
Jun 22, 2011, 07:05 AM
I shudder to think of the price of an Apple TV set.

$99 for the ATV is much preferable. It doesn't interfere that much with the look of my A/V setup.

stevensr123
Jun 22, 2011, 07:27 AM
depends on the price and how they implement it and what the features would be like compared to the current apple tv and an actually TV.

If it has a huge amount of features compared to the current and the price is comparable to the latest and great tv's on the Market, then it could be a successful to a degree.

But then this is apple we are talking about, it will probably cost twice as much, just look at the apple monitors of today!!!

I doubt this will ever happen though, why invest so much money in a TV project, when u could most likely have a higher profit margin on the current apple tv?

Sackvillenb
Jun 22, 2011, 07:48 AM
OK, first off, I'll warn you that this will be a long post, with nothing other than my personal speculations on an Apple TV set...

Well I have to say, your post was very interesting. Although I don't agree with all of your points, most of your points are very interesting and valid.

Before I read your post, I was going to say that I thought it would be unlikely that Apple would enter the TV market. But if they did... they would be the company with the balls to diversify in such a manner. And I think they would only do it if they DID revolutionize the tv... according to their version of a tv anyway.

But I do think we'll still need menus! :) Some content still needs manual adjustments at times... (I'm thinking for gaming... everything else should be fine). And I absolutely agree that we don't need 42 different controls for sharpness and color, etc. Coming from a pro audio and audiophile background, I've always found it odd that tv's don't simply deliver a detailed and accurate reproduction of the video input signal. That's what pro audio is about... and that's what pro video should be about! Simple, really! :)

One thing that I don't think many people have thought about, however... is how Apple would intergrate tv's into their retail environments... If they came out with televisions, I think they would only have one or maybe two sizes at the most. TV's are big! There's no room for them in most Apple stores! Consider the back of the store, where they keep their inventory.... There's no room for tv's there...

Although an Apple television would be cool (especially if it really was a "revolutionary" Apple take on a tv), I would be very happy if they simply beefed up their Apple tv box... It has a lot of potential... but right now it's a very limited device. Even if the existing apple tv simply allowed me to stream ALL of my media content from any computer... that alone would b a huge improvement!

Well, as always... only time will tell what Apple's plans really are... :)

drnen
Jun 22, 2011, 08:38 AM
arent margins on tv sets traditionally verrry low? People have become accustomed to bargain hd tv prices.. i dont see Apple's current high margin model working here, but maybe its just me. There are prob lots of people who would be perfectly happy with a shiny wafer thin 42in hd set for $2000 :rolleyes:

chaosbunny
Jun 22, 2011, 08:53 AM
It will only allow you to watch tv when it's raining in Cupertino and only the tv shows it preselects for you. After all, choices are too complicated for the consumer as we know.

winston1236
Jun 22, 2011, 08:59 AM
maybe they should fix final cut pro x first, release a new macbook, entire ipod line, etc...

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 22, 2011, 09:53 AM
maybe they should fix final cut pro x first, release a new macbook, entire ipod line, etc...

yeah, since this is a confirmed release of a product, specs, and all... :rolleyes:

Thunderhawks
Jun 22, 2011, 10:03 AM
Forget the TV. I want larger and larger Apple displays on my desk. They don't need anything special built-in. I'll run whatever media app I want on my Mac.

Same here, large displays on my desk or a projecting device. (See end of response)
Plenty of people who want a TV and they have whatever they like.

Set top boxes and Apple TV are easily replaced and updated. Try that with a TV you invested $ 2,000 or so in. Shove all the stuff behind the TV with the cable mess, if the esthetics bother you.

Integrating isn't a good idea , because if things break your entire device is not usable.

These dates especially younger generations want to be connected to the internet all the time.
Answering e-mails, chatting, face book update etc. etc. and they'll watch TV at the same time they do all of these things.
Sometimes even many shows at once.
They also want to see their favorite programs when they have the time, not when the networks broadcasts.

So, we need better TV capabilities in our IMac MBP's etc.

Couldn't care less about a TV.

What I really want is a small Apple device that projects any image in HD quality from my computer onto anything I want in whatever size.

stewart715
Jun 22, 2011, 10:36 AM
Don't know if this is related or even real:

http://digg.com/news/technology/http_farm4_static_flickr_com_3144_5859820735_8b06d49486_b_jpg

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 22, 2011, 10:39 AM
Don't know if this is related or even real:

http://digg.com/news/technology/http_farm4_static_flickr_com_3144_5859820735_8b06d49486_b_jpg

an image like that can easily be photoshopped to include whatever info they want, so i'd take it with a grain of salt.

I would also think if apple were looking to do something like this they would be looking at something along the lines of IPTV, where no other devices are required, not DirecTV which needs a satellite dish.

Joe The Dragon
Jun 22, 2011, 11:12 AM
an image like that can easily be photoshopped to include whatever info they want, so i'd take it with a grain of salt.

I would also think if apple were looking to do something like this they would be looking at something along the lines of IPTV, where no other devices are required, not DirecTV which needs a satellite dish.

IPTV? over what cable?? no way that comcast will let that happen that 250gb download cap will shut this down fast.

emaja
Jun 22, 2011, 11:39 AM
IPTV? over what cable?? no way that comcast will let that happen that 250gb download cap will shut this down fast.

AT&T uVerse.

ersatzplanet
Jun 22, 2011, 11:53 AM
All Apple has to do is put a HDMI port and a standard optical audio port (not combine it with the 1/8" jack) on a Mac Mini. control it from your iPad or from a bluetooth setup or from your iPhone. I do all that from my last generation Mini. All the "stations" you want and it plays DVDs. If Apple paid the royalties for BlueRay, updated FrontRow (make it a better Plex) and added that to the MINI too it would be a perfect unit.
Almost everyone already has a big screen TV - they are not gonna buy another just for those added features but they may buy a media center box like the MINI to plug into the set they already have.

Leaping Tortois
Jun 22, 2011, 12:03 PM
No, no, no, this is all wrong! We don't want TV's with only one or two mini-display ports! Want a TV with OPTIONS, apple never were good at options.

hitekalex
Jun 22, 2011, 12:53 PM
DLNA? Surely you jest. Apple won't touch that garbage with a 10 foot pole.

Is that the same "garbage" with which I can stream HD video across my home network from my NAS to my TV? With no additional hardware?

Guess I better throw it in the nearest skip.

"No additional hardware" other than your NAS running DLNA server? Show me DLNA server that runs on a mobile device (phone or a tablet). Show me DLNA implementation that works reliably for all formats that it claims to support. Show me DLNA setup that can correctly display media art and metadata.

There is a reason why Apple invented AirPlay - namely that DLNA is a half baked standard that's not average consumer friendly and never really worked reliably.

NomadicTy
Jun 22, 2011, 12:56 PM
It's only going to offer 720p. "Because the average person cannot distinguish between 1080 and 720". LOL!

Thunderhawks
Jun 22, 2011, 01:22 PM
I used to think this but the more i see airplay the more i think they want the ipad too hold the apps and the Apple Tv be nothing more than a mirroring device. Its hard enough to do anything with that stupid apple remote.... the ipad solves that.

Yes, that ATV remote is very much not what Apple does.

Cumbersome to use and just time wastingly impractical.

The smoothness and gliding of the OS elements and letters and sounds are beautiful, but functionally I think they can do better.

We need a touch screen remote, wait we'll have it ijhone and ipad.

TSE
Jun 22, 2011, 01:51 PM
Could they possible turn the 27" iMac or a new 30" iMac into a TV? I was thinking about this last night.

badmac78
Jun 22, 2011, 02:46 PM
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/sep/07rokr.html

Not happening ... Apple controls their own destiny these days.

I would be very surprised.

hitekalex
Jun 22, 2011, 03:11 PM
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/sep/07rokr.html

Not happening ... Apple controls their own destiny these days.

I would be very surprised.

Complete non sequitur. What does ROKR have to do with this?

emaja
Jun 22, 2011, 03:17 PM
Complete non sequitur. What does ROKR have to do with this?

I believe that is a reference to the failure of the ROKR and how displeased Apple was with it since they did not control the hardware. The point may have been that Apple would have to partner with a TV manufacturer and co-brand the TV - which at this point they would never do.

ArcaneDevice
Jun 22, 2011, 03:18 PM
All Apple has to do is put a HDMI port and a standard optical audio port (not combine it with the 1/8" jack) on a Mac Mini. control it from your iPad or from a bluetooth setup or from your iPhone. I do all that from my last generation Mini. All the "stations" you want and it plays DVDs. If Apple paid the royalties for BlueRay, updated FrontRow (make it a better Plex) and added that to the MINI too it would be a perfect unit.

The Mini already has HDMI but it's far from a perfect unit. That's why I use mine with WMC7.

When Front Row comes with an IPG, DVR and support for ATSC and QAM instead of having to mess around with third party software, then it might get closer to perfect. Why pay for television through iTunes when it's free OTA?

rjohnstone
Jun 22, 2011, 03:25 PM
"No additional hardware" other than your NAS running DLNA server? Show me DLNA server that runs on a mobile device (phone or a tablet).
The Moto Atrix does DLNA HD streaming straight from the phone to my DLNA equiped Panasonic TV. ;)
No additional hardware required.
Is it perfect... no. I'd say about 90% of the time it works without any issues.
The other 10% are either content encoding issues or user error. :D

hitekalex
Jun 22, 2011, 04:05 PM
I believe that is a reference to the failure of the ROKR and how displeased Apple was with it since they did not control the hardware. The point may have been that Apple would have to partner with a TV manufacturer and co-brand the TV - which at this point they would never do.

ROKR didn't fail because Apple didn't control the hardware. It failed because Apple didn't control the software, and the Moto OS that it ran was complete junk.. not to mention a silly 100 song limit, which was artificially imposed to protect Apple iPod sales.

Partnering with a TV manufacturer for some of the hardware components is perfectly fine, as long as Apple controls the software and the UI elements of the device. Do you really think that Apple designs and engineers the 27" screen that comes in every iMac? Of course they don't - they partner with screen manufacturers like LG, Samsung, etc. It wouldn't be any different with Apple-made TV.

The Moto Atrix does DLNA HD streaming straight from the phone to my DLNA equiped Panasonic TV. ;)
No additional hardware required.
Is it perfect... no. I'd say about 90% of the time it works without any issues.
The other 10% are either content encoding issues or user error. :D

The AirPlay between my iPad and AppleTV works 100% of the time, and doesn't leave much room for "user error" ;)

badmac78
Jun 22, 2011, 04:20 PM
I believe that is a reference to the failure of the ROKR and how displeased Apple was with it since they did not control the hardware. The point may have been that Apple would have to partner with a TV manufacturer and co-brand the TV - which at this point they would never do.

Thanks :D

ROKR didn't fail because Apple didn't control the hardware. It failed because Apple didn't control the software, and the Moto OS that it ran was complete junk.. not to mention a silly 100 song limit, which was artificially imposed to protect Apple iPod sales.

Partnering with a TV manufacturer for some of the hardware components is perfectly fine, as long as Apple controls the software and the UI elements of the device. Do you really think that Apple designs and engineers the 27" screen that comes in every iMac? Of course they don't - they partner with screen manufacturers like LG, Samsung, etc. It wouldn't be any different with Apple-made TV.

The hardware was not all that great either. Apple controls their hardware destiny. They don't necessarily manufacture the screens but they do control the quality and design of what get's put out.

theOtherGeoff
Jun 22, 2011, 06:56 PM
So let me get this straight - Apple can "barely" (by iOS device standards) sell the $99 Apple TV, but they are going to roll out actual TVs?

Not happening. Just keep adding features (*cough* apps *cough*) to the $99 ATV and they'll move.

to your last point first... Steve always quotes that the key to apple's success is the ability to resist adding features to a product. You're breaking the prime directive.

To me, the key feature is 'one button on one remote to control the display(TV), the sound(Home Theater Receiver) and the features (iOS).'

Think iPhone. What is that... a one button computer with a phone app.
Think iTV... a one button(remote) computer with a HDTV app.
The back: a cable input, an RJ45, and a power cord (and some new 7.2 cable interface that is one plug with 9 octopus outputs for the speakers... $29)
The front... a TV set with a power button, bluetooth and wireless built into the bezel, a 2.1 speaker system ('internal speakers')

It's 1" wide, (other than the detachable base which includes the downward subwoofer) 40" on diagonal, has 2048x1536 resolution (double current iPad for easy resolution uplift).

Supports bluetooth keyboard, mouse and headphones.

It's so uber consistent with the iOeverything, I want to go patent it;-).

Steve, Hire me the program manager... I'll make it work insanely great!!!!!!(write me at theothergeoff@gmail.com);-)

Could they possible turn the 27" iMac or a new 30" iMac into a TV? I was thinking about this last night.

makes no sense unless they port iOS to the Intel platform. Makes more sense to embed the ATV into a flatscreen, and instead of an HDMI out cable, just drive VRAM that the TV uses.

Jeaz
Jun 23, 2011, 02:25 AM
I really can't see this happening as there is very little profit to be made in TVs. Panasonic recently let 16,000 go and Phillips shut down it's TV production completely.

hitekalex
Jun 23, 2011, 10:33 AM
I really can't see this happening as there is very little profit to be made in TVs. Panasonic recently let 16,000 go and Phillips shut down it's TV production completely.

Why do you think Apple can successfully sell LCD screens (Apple Cinema Displays), but not TVs?

A modern TV is basically a large / lower resolution LCD screen with a built-in ATSC tuner (the latter is a low-cost commodity component).

Apple can EASILY take the current ACD design and extend it into a TV form factor, adding integrated ATV2/A5 module and perhaps ATSC tuner.

KingCrimson
Jun 23, 2011, 11:39 AM
The iTV will be beautiful and work amazingly great. No - insanely great and people will pay through the nose to own one. :D

rjohnstone
Jun 23, 2011, 12:20 PM
The AirPlay between my iPad and AppleTV works 100% of the time, and doesn't leave much room for "user error" ;)
You still need that $99 piece of hardware in between your iPad and TV for it to work. ;)

Also, you still have to make sure your content is encoded with the right codec. This is the same issue with DLNA, although DLNA supports more codecs than AirPlay.
There is plenty of room for "user error".
Some person who has no clue about codecs (average user) will be pretty upset when something that is supposed to "just work" can't play their home movies.

yadmonkey
Jun 23, 2011, 01:56 PM
Why do you think Apple can successfully sell LCD screens (Apple Cinema Displays), but not TVs?

A modern TV is basically a large / lower resolution LCD screen with a built-in ATSC tuner (the latter is a low-cost commodity component).

Apple can EASILY take the current ACD design and extend it into a TV form factor, adding integrated ATV2/A5 module and perhaps ATSC tuner.

Based on what I've seen as a Mac technician for 12 years and having been in the homes/offices of hundreds of Mac users, I don't think Apple sells a ton of ACDs. I doubt they'd enter a very price-competitive TV market just to be a niche offering. Just doesn't seem to be their style when it comes to consumer electronics.

I'd be less surprised to see Samsung or some other company offer TVs with iTunes streaming built-in, but I doubt and iTV will happen.

Koham
Jun 23, 2011, 10:24 PM
It's just not Apple's MO to put the Apple logo on something that they did not design and build themselves. If this is happening, it'll only happen if Samsung plays the role of Foxconn. I definitely don't think Apple will follow a partnership model and just bet their brand on something that's built by someone else.

SactoGuy18
Jun 24, 2011, 12:11 AM
Sorry, Apple will NOT get into the hyper-competitive television market, because Apple will not want to get into selling low-margin consumer electronics, especially since they'll have to compete against Vizio, Samsung, LG and Sony in that market. Now, an enhanced Apple TV box that can plug into any TV that has an HDMI 1.3a connector, that's a different story.