PDA

View Full Version : Foxconn Accelerating Sharp LCD Panel Orders to Launch Apple Television for Holiday Season?




MacRumors
Jun 21, 2012, 09:21 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/21/foxconn-accelerating-sharp-lcd-panel-orders-to-launch-apple-television-for-holiday-season/)


In a new research note published today, Topeka Capital Markets analyst Brian White points to a new report from Chinese business site 21cbh.com claiming that Foxconn/Hon Hai has accelerated its schedule for ordering television-sized LCD panels from Sharp, fueling speculation that the panels are destined for an Apple television set that could debut in time for the holiday shopping season this year. Foxconn and Sharp announced a partnership (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/27/foxconn-and-sharp-enter-partnership-to-advance-lcd-technology/) earlier this year to advance LCD technology, a move some observers have seen as closely tied to an Apple television set.This morning, the Chinese character version of 21cbh.com indicated in an article that Hon Hai Precision expects to start receiving LCD TV panel orders from Sharp in 3Q12 instead of 4Q12 as was originally planned. Recall, Hon Hai invested in Sharp earlier this year to secure LCD panels that we believe will largely support a new Apple TV. Based on a recent interview by 21cbh.com with a Sharp executive and information from sources at the company, the online news source believes the order is for the new Apple TV and could be available for the holiday season. In our view, a holiday launch would make for a very merry holiday season for Apple and consumers. However, we will continue to monitor the data points surrounding the timing of this launch as they could change.In his new note, White also reiterates his claims from earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/11/apple-television-set-to-include-motion-sensing-control-and-touchscreen-remote/) regarding Apple's use of Kinect-like motion sensing technology for controlling the forthcoming television set, with the device also including an iPad-like touchscreen remote.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/03/apple_tv_2012_interface-500x308.jpg


White continues to be one of the most optimistic analysts regarding Apple, maintaining his 12-month price target for the stock at $1,111. He believes that Apple could generate $10 billion in revenue from its television set in the first year, operating under the assumption that Apple's device will command a higher price than its competition's products and that the company will be able to grab 2% of the LCD television market in its first year.

Article Link: Foxconn Accelerating Sharp LCD Panel Orders to Launch Apple Television for Holiday Season? (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/21/foxconn-accelerating-sharp-lcd-panel-orders-to-launch-apple-television-for-holiday-season/)



Aidan5806
Jun 21, 2012, 09:25 AM
4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

charlieegan3
Jun 21, 2012, 09:26 AM
Need some new mockups, that picture is getting boring on every apple tv set story.

RobertMartens
Jun 21, 2012, 09:27 AM
4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

CindyRed
Jun 21, 2012, 09:28 AM
Why is that whenever Apple looks into larger displays, it has to be a new AppleTV? Why not the more obvious answer of a new Cinema Display? After all, a new 4Kish display for Pro users and one to compliment the new MacBook Pro would make sense.

barkomatic
Jun 21, 2012, 09:28 AM
I expect to be surprised, but its hard for me to imagine a TV from Apple that would be so great that I'd pay a premium for it. I assume its got an Apple TV baked in, and will come with ala carte TV/Cable channel subscriptions -- rather than basic/premium packages you get now from cable companies -- which force you to pay for channels you never watch. THAT would be revolutionary, but why the special hardware?

thenewyorkgod
Jun 21, 2012, 09:29 AM
Need some new mockups, that picture is getting boring on every apple tv set story.

I would be extremely happy if it looked something like this:

http://whoinvented.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/first-television.jpg

Or this:

http://www.greatestcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/first-tv-set-images-by-thephora.jpg

charlieegan3
Jun 21, 2012, 09:30 AM
I would be extremely happy if it looked something like this:

Image (http://whoinvented.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/first-television.jpg)

Or this:

Image (http://www.greatestcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/first-tv-set-images-by-thephora.jpg)

:Dyou might be the only one...:D

iapplelove
Jun 21, 2012, 09:30 AM
My pioneer plasma is on its last leg..

Come on with the apple TV already :apple:

Orlandoech.com
Jun 21, 2012, 09:30 AM
How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

At a premium...

RobertMartens
Jun 21, 2012, 09:31 AM
I would be extremely happy if it looked something like this:

Image (http://www.greatestcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/first-tv-set-images-by-thephora.jpg)

Is that real wood grain finish? Do you have anything in all glass?

adildacoolset
Jun 21, 2012, 09:32 AM
How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

I doubt. Although they are very tight-fisted with some things like GPUs and VRAM, they are very generous with resolution and pixel density.

bharatgupta
Jun 21, 2012, 09:33 AM
its not going to launch in december but later in 2013 bec at current we havent seen any remarkable improvements in motion sensing technology, its just not ready...apple tv product will be based on a big ecosystem that takes time to be build and build properly.

So Random
Jun 21, 2012, 09:33 AM
Retina TV?

;)

bharatgupta
Jun 21, 2012, 09:34 AM
Retina TV?

;)

duh!

RobertMartens
Jun 21, 2012, 09:35 AM
Actually when 720p 49" display is viewed from a distance of 3 meters it has the adjusted dpi of over 300 which makes it qualify as a 'retina display'

davidwarren
Jun 21, 2012, 09:35 AM
I still can't see apple coming out with a stand-alone TV monitor. Maybe license Atv-like software and then have tvs from other manufacturers "powered by Apple Tv" or something.... There just isn't the margin in TVs apple is used to.

illian
Jun 21, 2012, 09:36 AM
Retina TV?

;)

i got one at home already!:cool:

adildacoolset
Jun 21, 2012, 09:36 AM
A very clear IPS screen, siri, iCloud sync, apps(already done but I think this would actually make them popular), simple remote, and whatever surprise that is in the works to once again change the world of technology.

diamond.g
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
I hope they don't cheapen out and go with edge lit LED displays. The black levels aren't as good.

dashiel
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
The number of times parts have been ordered hinting at an AppleTV wed be on our third generation by now.

needfx
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
analysts, can't stand them, can surely live without them

olowott
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
This is going to be a Crazy Autumn/Christmas Tech Shopping Season,

Apple iPhone 5 , Small iPAD (maybe) Apple TV(Maybe too)
Windows everything (OS, Surface, Phone)
Samsung - doing everything they can


Apple TV - will be awesome just like the Retina Pro

Im Scared:( of the Price!! but why should i ?, its got the :apple: logo on it!!

RobertMartens
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
I still can't see apple coming out with a stand-alone TV monitor. Maybe license Atv-like software and then have tvs from other manufacturers "powered by Apple Tv" or something.... There just isn't the margin in TVs apple is used to.

Apple is the King of Margin where none existed before

blackhand1001
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
My pioneer plasma is on its last leg..

Come on with the apple TV already :apple:

Its going to look inferior if its lcd. Pioneer plasmas are much better.

fastlanephil
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
Why is that whenever Apple looks into larger displays, it has to be a new AppleTV? Why not the more obvious answer of a new Cinema Display? After all, a new 4Kish display for Pro users and one to compliment the new MacBook Pro would make sense.

No chance of that.

adildacoolset
Jun 21, 2012, 09:38 AM
you might be the only one...

come on, at least take a joke.

TallManNY
Jun 21, 2012, 09:38 AM
Would 4K be amazing? I haven't seen one of those in person. But isn't standard HD pretty much "retina" level display once you settle into a couch ten feet from the TV? I guess not once you get once of the big TVs. But it certainly must be real close.

I will be curious to see what happens. But I also think that current generation of Apple TV can handle most of the control stuff that I would want it to just with a little extra programming and Apps for my iPhone and iPad. I'm already pushing more and more stuff up and off my iOS devices onto my TV. Programming should allow me to do more and more of that. No new hardware needed.

Anthony0224
Jun 21, 2012, 09:38 AM
Jeez i hope they make a model of this that's at LEAST 55". 65 would be great but i don't see that happening. Either way i'm definitely buying one.... complete household integration! :apple:

Moonjumper
Jun 21, 2012, 09:38 AM
Why is that whenever Apple looks into larger displays, it has to be a new AppleTV? Why not the more obvious answer of a new Cinema Display? After all, a new 4Kish display for Pro users and one to compliment the new MacBook Pro would make sense.

It would be nice if you could dock a MacBook or Mac Mini on the back of an Apple television so that you can use it as a 4K monitor without anything being in the way. In fact, that would be a nice alternative to the iMac, even if they don't do a TV, and would give an excuse for a more powerful Mac Mini.

MonkeySee....
Jun 21, 2012, 09:39 AM
How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

Yes. Apple just upgraded iTunes to 1080p and the ATV3 box to 1080p to bring out a 720p tv set.

Darth.Titan
Jun 21, 2012, 09:39 AM
I still maintain that Apple has no cause to get into the very saturated television market. There's no way Apple can compete with existing sets pricewise, plus there's nothing they can do with their own brand television that they couldn't do with an add-on box like the AppleTV.

What about screen size? Are they going to have different options for different needs? We know how Apple has been historically about options, and you can't enter the television market with just one or two sizes available and expect to make everyone happy.

Even the hardcore Apple fans I know aren't going to run out and replace their televisions just because Apple starts making one, I don't care what "killer feature" it has. The TVs in my house are all doing the jobs they're intended to, and I'll only replace one when that changes. Not before.

I firmly believe that if Apple starts selling a television, it's going to be one of their occasional duds. I'm sure the tech will be impressive, I just don't think they're going to be selling them by the truckload like they're used to doing with iPhones and iPads. An Apple Television just doesn't make sense. I just don't think Apple can make any money off of it.

charlieegan3
Jun 21, 2012, 09:42 AM
come on, at least take a joke.

okay:D:D

dashiel
Jun 21, 2012, 09:43 AM
I still can't see apple coming out with a stand-alone TV monitor. Maybe license Atv-like software and then have tvs from other manufacturers "powered by Apple Tv" or something.... There just isn't the margin in TVs apple is used to.

Im there with you, but there could be the possibility Apple introduces a Cradle-to-Cradle (http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm) device along with a subsidized subscription. Think a $50 iTunes monthly subscription over 3 years and a $699 for a top of the line 50" screen. Apples moves in environmentally friendly materials actually make reuse of materials in a C2C business model a very viable proposition and California is making a big, big push in promoting C2C.

iapplelove
Jun 21, 2012, 09:44 AM
Its going to look inferior if its lcd. Pioneer plasmas are much better.

True,can't beat those black levels on the pioneer but it's close to 9 years old now. Maybe the tv will bring a retina display

charlieegan3
Jun 21, 2012, 09:44 AM
analysts, can't stand them, can surely live without them

clearly you don't have any investments?:D I agree though there are endless guesswork gets a bit boring.

convergent
Jun 21, 2012, 09:44 AM
I still can't see apple coming out with a stand-alone TV monitor. Maybe license Atv-like software and then have tvs from other manufacturers "powered by Apple Tv" or something.... There just isn't the margin in TVs apple is used to.


Are you familiar with Apple? The company that doesn't license anything to anyone, and always does their own total solution.

Do you think Dell's margin on a PC is much different than Sony's on a TV? The majority of the profit margin on a Windows PC goes to Microsoft. Apple is used to high margins because they can get them on their products. They actually produce a better product than the low cost driven competition, and they understand supply chain to drive costs down.

They will not license their technology to other TV makers, and they will get high margins on a TV if they sell one. Otherwise they won't enter the market.

UK-MacAddict
Jun 21, 2012, 09:45 AM
"iPad-like touchscreen remote". Telling you, Apple has no plans for a 7 inch iPad and what's leaking out is info on the remote for the Apple TV :p

Makes sense. Touch screen control with built in mic for Siri voice commands. Best remote ever :D

adildacoolset
Jun 21, 2012, 09:46 AM
it better not gave glare

RadiDoc
Jun 21, 2012, 09:46 AM
My pioneer plasma is on its last leg..

Come on with the apple TV already :apple:

You should wait for OLED, if you are looking to replace your pioneer plasma....

ganymedes13
Jun 21, 2012, 09:47 AM
its not going to launch in december but later in 2013 bec at current we havent seen any remarkable improvements in motion sensing technology, its just not ready...apple tv product will be based on a big ecosystem that takes time to be build and build properly.

It's more than likely you will never see this stuff by an independent company. MS bought Kinect from an Israeli company after they went to Apple first. No one knew of this tech and the story behind it until everyone saw the Kinect.

That said, this is analyst so I stopped reading after the first sentence.

TallManNY
Jun 21, 2012, 09:47 AM
I expect to be surprised, but its hard for me to imagine a TV from Apple that would be so great that I'd pay a premium for it. I assume its got an Apple TV baked in, and will come with ala carte TV/Cable channel subscriptions -- rather than basic/premium packages you get now from cable companies -- which force you to pay for channels you never watch. THAT would be revolutionary, but why the special hardware?

And you think that Apple will be able to negotiate a price cut from the cable companies based on what leverage?

So lets see how this goes down.

Apple: Your current customers send you $120 per month for their channels only some of them they want. Our proposal is that you allow them to pick channels, you "fairly" price those channels. And the vast majority of your customers start sending you significantly less than $120 a month.

Cable Company: So you are suggesting I give up most of my profit.

Apple: But your customers will like you more and they will buy my TVs.

Cable Company: Not interested.

Apple: But some customers will sign up for a package of cheap channels who aren't already your customer.

Cable Company: I basically have a near monopoly in the areas I serve and me and the other cable companies currently have about 70% of American households as customers. 10% of American households are super broke and will never be able to buy anyting. So even if you delivered the ENTIRE remaining 20%, you wouldn't increase my customer base enough to cover any significant decrease in the monthly payments I get. I think this conversation is over. Call me when you have a proposal that involves my customers sending me MORE money each month. Then we can talk.

furqan8421
Jun 21, 2012, 09:47 AM
I highly doubt it will be a 4k set, as there is no need for one right now

Aside from movies nothing is even broadcast in 1080p right now as far as I know

kitsunestudios
Jun 21, 2012, 09:48 AM
Any possibility these panels are for ramped-up Ivy Bridge iMac production, rather than an Apple HDTV?

class77
Jun 21, 2012, 09:49 AM
I still maintain that Apple has no cause to get into the very saturated television market. There's no way Apple can compete with existing sets pricewise, plus there's nothing they can do with their own brand television that they couldn't do with an add-on box like the AppleTV.

What about screen size? Are they going to have different options for different needs? We know how Apple has been historically about options, and you can't enter the television market with just one or two sizes available and expect to make everyone happy.

Even the hardcore Apple fans I know aren't going to run out and replace their televisions just because Apple starts making one, I don't care what "killer feature" it has. The TVs in my house are all doing the jobs they're intended to, and I'll only replace one when that changes. Not before.

I firmly believe that if Apple starts selling a television, it's going to be one of their occasional duds. I'm sure the tech will be impressive, I just don't think they're going to be selling them by the truckload like they're used to doing with iPhones and iPads. An Apple Television just doesn't make sense. I just don't think Apple can make any money off of it.

I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV. The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

I'm guessing that people would make rude suggestions about how Apple could recycle their old TV:D

aaarrrgggh
Jun 21, 2012, 10:00 AM
I highly doubt it will be a 4k set, as there is no need for one right now

Aside from movies nothing is even broadcast in 1080p right now as far as I know

My logic for it is to have clear text when using it as anything but a TV. Allow hybrid vector/raster graphics superpositioning. It is the only thing where a full tv offers any real benefit over a box.

M-O
Jun 21, 2012, 10:00 AM
this won't be a TV. it will be a device with TV functionality. just like the iPhone was a device with phone functionality.

MuppetGate
Jun 21, 2012, 10:04 AM
I still maintain that Apple has no cause to get into the very saturated television market.

Agreed. I think they'll just come up with a new AppleTV

tekno
Jun 21, 2012, 10:06 AM
What is the 'holiday shopping season'?

EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, but if you're not American, 'the holiday season' means nothing. Is that summer holiday, xmas holiday??

macbookairgirl
Jun 21, 2012, 10:07 AM
Which TV would Apple have to beat in order to be number 1?

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 10:12 AM
How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

You might be the first person to hit -100 votes with this comment.

If you seriously think this, I have a bridge to sell you. Nevermind the fact that the Apple TV box is 1080P now...

Apple 'pushes' the envelope and forces others to follow. The set is going to have a display that is amazing.

mjtomlin
Jun 21, 2012, 10:14 AM
I still maintain that Apple has no cause to get into the very saturated television market. There's no way Apple can compete with existing sets pricewise, plus there's nothing they can do with their own brand television that they couldn't do with an add-on box like the AppleTV.

What about screen size? Are they going to have different options for different needs? We know how Apple has been historically about options, and you can't enter the television market with just one or two sizes available and expect to make everyone happy.

Apple usually doesn't compete on price anyway, they compete on integration and user experience. A simple add-on box like the current AppleTV can't act as hub for all the other components of your entertainment system. A TV is the main interface to all (most of) those other boxes. Some of those boxes can already be controlled by apps on iOS devices. If Apple were to release a TV powered by iOS, they could work with component / set top box manufacturers and build better apps / interfaces for controlling those devices.

Why couldn't Apple just build two or three different size models? Apple usually doesn't enter markets to try and make everyone happy. They design and build a really good product that initially only appeal to a small fraction of people, then build out a line of devices from there.



I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV. The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

This is logic I never understood... If it's still perfectly functioning, why would you need to upgrade it? Support for the original AppleTV was dropped a few years ago and yet I continue to use mine every day. Sure it doesn't run all the latest and greatest features of the newer devices, but it STILL works.

Asclepio
Jun 21, 2012, 10:17 AM
a retina display for crappy quality itunes videos, wow

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 10:19 AM
I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV. The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

I'm guessing that people would make rude suggestions about how Apple could recycle their old TV:D

Do you think Apple has not 'addressed' this 'MAJOR' issue.

They know TVs are not a '2 year' life span device like an iPhone or iPad is.

Most likely, the Apple Display/TV is going to come with something you can 'swap out' in terms of it's core guts/memory/etc...possibly an Apple TV inside an Apple TV. The 'display' itself will be long term. The 'guts' upgradable.

blackhand1001
Jun 21, 2012, 10:20 AM
True,can't beat those black levels on the pioneer but it's close to 9 years old now. Maybe the tv will bring a retina display

Just buy a panasonic plasma and call it a day.

ristlin
Jun 21, 2012, 10:21 AM
Haven't had cable TV for five years. Plan on keeping it that way.

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 10:31 AM
Haven't had cable TV for five years. Plan on keeping it that way.

You don't need cable TV to still have a TV and use it for DVD/BLU-RAY/HDMI/STREAMING/ETC up to it.

Randomoneh
Jun 21, 2012, 10:34 AM
I hope one of the future Apple TV sets (4rth, 5th gen.) will follow this chart.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5242/1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png

ThunderSkunk
Jun 21, 2012, 10:34 AM
TV's are obsolete, and the entire content delivery model is failing, according to every industry survey and analyst and even the CEOs of the major networks.

Apple should be ready, but wait patiently for it to finish itself off first before replacing it with their own start-to-finish solution.

"TV" should just be an app on your iMac or iPad, full screen or Picture-In-Picture. Apple shouldn't even need to build any new hardware into an iMac, but convert the "channels" on their side, & stream over the net to your device.

...but there's never been anything on tv so important I had to see it at that moment. I'll continue to get my video via Netflix, Vimeo, YouTube & TPB.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 21, 2012, 10:35 AM
You might be the first person to hit -100 votes with this comment.

If you seriously think this, I have a bridge to sell you. Nevermind the fact that the Apple TV box is 1080P now...

Apple 'pushes' the envelope and forces others to follow. The set is going to have a display that is amazing.

nah... I'm pretty sure this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13666261&postcount=1) person will hold the record on negative votes for quite some time ;)

Anthony0224
Jun 21, 2012, 10:37 AM
Which TV would Apple have to beat in order to be number 1?

Sharp and Samsung! Sharp is the leader in large televisions (They just released a new 90", yes 90, LCD television 3 days ago) and Samsung has the new "Smart TV" which is extremely crisp, has a beautifui GUI, and is in my opinon one of the best TVs on the market right now.

The one way apple could really redefine television is definition. I don't expect another 10 million pixels, but something just one step beyond 1080p to make the pixels "indistinguishable" from normal viewing distance. I don't think 1080p acheives this in my opinion, and if they did that all the other televisions would have no choice but to follow.

Kimbie
Jun 21, 2012, 10:40 AM
I think this will be a ninche product.

I have an LG 1080p 50" plasma that I paid 450 for from retail, the screen on it is amazing, what on earth would convince me to cough up 2 or 3 times the price for an Apple TV?

It will more than likely be a 1080p TV, with maybe appletv built in, well I have a XBMC box hooked so which is far better than the appletv.

It is unlikely it will be a 4K TV as we are years from that being a domestic format for TV, hell most cable content is sent at 720p or at best 1080i making little difference.

Kimbie

doelcm82
Jun 21, 2012, 10:40 AM
And you think that Apple will be able to negotiate a price cut from the cable companies based on what leverage?

So lets see how this goes down.

Apple: Your current customers send you $120 per month for their channels only some of them they want. Our proposal is that you allow them to pick channels, you "fairly" price those channels. And the vast majority of your customers start sending you significantly less than $120 a month.

Cable Company: So you are suggesting I give up most of my profit.

Apple: But your customers will like you more and they will buy my TVs.

Cable Company: Not interested.

Apple: But some customers will sign up for a package of cheap channels who aren't already your customer.

Cable Company: I basically have a near monopoly in the areas I serve and me and the other cable companies currently have about 70% of American households as customers. 10% of American households are super broke and will never be able to buy anyting. So even if you delivered the ENTIRE remaining 20%, you wouldn't increase my customer base enough to cover any significant decrease in the monthly payments I get. I think this conversation is over. Call me when you have a proposal that involves my customers sending me MORE money each month. Then we can talk.

If the ATV rumors are correct then this has already gone down. Apple gave the cable companies a chance to preserve some of their profit, and the cable company said, "Thanks, but no thanks, our business model is good and our customers know they really have no choice."

Next Apple went to the content providers themselves, and said "Our product will let consumers choose what they want to watch, and because they will be paying only for what they watch they will be willing to pay more a la carte for the programming. Some customers will pay more than they currently do, and some will pay less. Your profit will remain the same at first, but our pricing model will allow you to charge more for popular (and expensive) shows by labeling them as 'premium', so in the long run you will make more. And we will make more. The only people who will make less are the cable companies, and we don't care about them since they told us to take a hike."

jasheeky
Jun 21, 2012, 10:42 AM
Unless it has full array led with local dimming or a better tech, I will not be replacing my xbr.

ThunderSkunk
Jun 21, 2012, 10:53 AM
"Our product will let consumers choose what they want to watch, and because they will be paying only for what they watch they will be willing to pay more a la carte for the programming. Some customers will pay more than they currently do, and some will pay less.

What throws a wrench in this is sports. Covering sports is so expensive that it's most of what you're paying for in your cable package. Even if you never watch it, you'll get ESPN, because it requires such a disproportionately huge subscriber base to subsidize it.

A la carte means bye bye ESPNs. ...something Disney's not going to appreciate...

Still, that day is coming...

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 10:55 AM
From what I have notice at least with my local Apple store is they are still using Pioneer Plasma TV which of course looks incredible, plasma rocks in my book.

I find it hard to believe Apple is bringing out a TV considering the exquisite 60 inch tv you get right now for 1500 or less dollars. AppleTV is not so great that I would move away from something like a Samsung PN60E550 60-Inch 1080p 600Hz 3D Slim Plasma HDTV which is incredible for gaming and blu-ray.

If Apple bring out a 42 I am going to lol for a week. Now that would really be more in the realm of religious zealot than fandom to pay premium price for something with limited value. Now a 4K 60 inch plasma I could see having some merit but its going to have to be the greatest iOS implementation of all time. AppleTV right now is a joke, functional YES but what I would call Apple level NO.

Now lets all fantasize on vaporware. :rolleyes:

rmwebs
Jun 21, 2012, 10:56 AM
4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

topmounter
Jun 21, 2012, 10:56 AM
ATTN Apple

I don't need, nor want a new television, my 42" 1080p panel w/ HDMI connected AppleTV is working just fine and will continue to work just fine for quite a few more years (my first 26" LCD HDTV, which is nearly ten years old now, is also still working just fine and doing kitchen duty).

What I do want (and arguably need) is an updated iMac.

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 10:59 AM
Need some new mockups, that picture is getting boring on every apple tv set story.

Maybe its because its mostly vaporware. No new pics of anything people can imagine it could look like. Remember Apple dropped this new interface from 5 years back that Steve said :) NO.

----------

Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

There is actual content and hardware has to come before content anyway, that is how the beast works. Now that you will need some massive bandwidth to download 4K is another story that is not happening for me any time soon in the state I live. Have to move back to Cali to even get the kind of bandwidth. :D

I love you Cali :p

rmwebs
Jun 21, 2012, 11:00 AM
I can only hope Apple dont do something stupid, like lock this TV down to only accepting content purchased (or streamed) through their network. It needs to have a LOT of flexibility (e.g multiple HDMI, audio in/out, digital audio, VGA in, terrestrial (and built in DVB-T/DVB-T2 for Europe & Australia), support for 3rd party encrypted content (decoder cards), etc.

On top of that, people wont pay the kind of price Apple charges for their displays when you can pick up a 42" 'Smart TV' for $600.

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 11:00 AM
TV's are obsolete, and the entire content delivery model is failing, according to every industry survey and analyst and even the CEOs of the major networks.

Apple should be ready, but wait patiently for it to finish itself off first before replacing it with their own start-to-finish solution.

"TV" should just be an app on your iMac or iPad, full screen or Picture-In-Picture. Apple shouldn't even need to build any new hardware into an iMac, but convert the "channels" on their side, & stream over the net to your device.

...but there's never been anything on tv so important I had to see it at that moment. I'll continue to get my video via Netflix, Vimeo, YouTube & TPB.

TVs are not 'obsolete'...the delivery model is.

The 'display' will always be the viewing device in the living room. How you get 'content' to it will be your decision.

rmwebs
Jun 21, 2012, 11:01 AM
There is actual content and hardware has to come before content anyway, that is how the beast works. Now that you will need some massive bandwidth to download 4K is another story that is not happening for me any time soon in the state I live. Have to move back to Cali to even get the kind of bandwidth. :D

I love you Cali :p

I do know what you mean, but at this point nothing is being made (or even planned to be made) at such a high resolution. It'd be like putting a Retina display on a Windows XP PC - there would be nothing to take advantage of it.

Maybe in 2 or 3 years time we'll start seeing it, but its really not feasible and would bump the price up to the point where people just wont bother. Also, like you said, bandwidth would be an issue. The average internet speed in theUS is just over 5Mb/s - thats pretty slow and will cause problems doing 1080p let alone 4k.

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 11:06 AM
Would 4K be amazing? I haven't seen one of those in person. But isn't standard HD pretty much "retina" level display once you settle into a couch ten feet from the TV? I guess not once you get once of the big TVs. But it certainly must be real close.

I will be curious to see what happens. But I also think that current generation of Apple TV can handle most of the control stuff that I would want it to just with a little extra programming and Apps for my iPhone and iPad. I'm already pushing more and more stuff up and off my iOS devices onto my TV. Programming should allow me to do more and more of that. No new hardware needed.

Yes you are correct as others have stated, now for a 60 inch for people only 5 feet away it could :rolleyes: or not be something worth doing. But the amount of people who like to sit near their tv with surround sound is a minority. :(

----------

I hope one of the future Apple TV sets (4rth, 5th gen.) will follow this chart.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5242/1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png

Dam so I need 16K by this chart, oh my love to see the size of that blu-ray?:eek:

Gravity
Jun 21, 2012, 11:09 AM
I'm thinking the new Apple TV would be incredibly thin... with zero bezel (edge-to-edge picture).

I'm hoping they do something incredibly sexy with it... like a WHITE SCREEN when the power is off. That would be frickin' hot.

Piggie
Jun 21, 2012, 11:12 AM
Apple 'pushes' the envelope and forces others to follow. The set is going to have a display that is amazing.

Yes, well Apple has finally managed to catch up and get USB3 into some of it's products and finally managed to get to 1080p after everyone else, and Steve Jobs saying 720p was good enough anyway.

And how long did they have a mouse with only 1 button?

Yes, leading the way :D

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 11:16 AM
I'm thinking the new Apple TV would be incredibly thin... with zero bezel (edge-to-edge picture).

I'm hoping they do something incredibly sexy with it... like a WHITE SCREEN when the power is off. That would be frickin' hot.

You mean see thru screen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwCi-WqMIFA

class77
Jun 21, 2012, 11:16 AM
Do you think Apple has not 'addressed' this 'MAJOR' issue.

They know TVs are not a '2 year' life span device like an iPhone or iPad is.

Most likely, the Apple Display/TV is going to come with something you can 'swap out' in terms of it's core guts/memory/etc...possibly an Apple TV inside an Apple TV. The 'display' itself will be long term. The 'guts' upgradable.
My iMac is still functioning perfectly, but I'm one OSX upgrade from the system being obsolete. Why would the TV be any different from Apple's philosophy on their computers? Hardware is what Apple has to sell, so it's in their best interest to force obsolescence for their products.

I do think it's amazing that some of you know the form that Apple TVs will take before they are even announced. How in the world do you know that you will be able to swap out the "core"?? What if it's all integrated like a big iMac? If it's just the "core" that's going to be swappable, why not keep the same form they currently have and use any TV with HDMI input?

ristlin
Jun 21, 2012, 11:17 AM
You don't need cable TV to still have a TV and use it for DVD/BLU-RAY/HDMI/STREAMING/ETC up to it.

Aye, hopefully Apple is able to bring on-demand channels : O

Navdakilla
Jun 21, 2012, 11:17 AM
I would prefer the Apple tv be updated with app capabilities, not sure if I want to sink in money for a appletv when I'd prefer a 100$ box that I can purchase multiples of and have access to my content anywhere in the house

doelcm82
Jun 21, 2012, 11:17 AM
I can only hope Apple dont do something stupid, like lock this TV down to only accepting content purchased (or streamed) through their network. It needs to have a LOT of flexibility (e.g multiple HDMI, audio in/out, digital audio, VGA in, terrestrial (and built in DVB-T/DVB-T2 for Europe & Australia), support for 3rd party encrypted content (decoder cards), etc.

On top of that, people wont pay the kind of price Apple charges for their displays when you can pick up a 42" 'Smart TV' for $600.

They will if Apple's TV is smarter than the 'Smart TV':

"Siri, show me the latest episode of The Walking Dead."

"The latest episode of The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' started streaming ten minutes ago. Would you like to watch it in progress, or from the beginning?"

"From the beginning."

"Showing The Walking Dead, - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' from the beginning."

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2012, 11:23 AM
nah... I'm pretty sure this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13666261&postcount=1) person will hold the record on negative votes for quite some time ;)


They are now up to -392 is there a price for this?:D

----------

My iMac is still functioning perfectly, but I'm one OSX upgrade from the system being obsolete. Why would the TV be any different from Apple's philosophy on their computers? Hardware is what Apple has to sell, so it's in their best interest to force obsolescence for their products.

I do think it's amazing that some of you know the form that Apple TVs will take before they are even announced. How in the world do you know that you will be able to swap out the "core"?? What if it's all integrated like a big iMac? If it's just the "core" that's going to be swappable, why not keep the same form they currently have and use any TV with HDMI input?

I see your idea, but realistic Apple can't bring out a 1080p it would be the biggest flop of all time. No Apple has to bring out something that jumps anyone else and have the price to turn the world upside down. But with the interface they have right now I see no benefit vs my 60 in samsung plasma (terrible interface, great picture) We and interface that takes us to the next level of TV nirvana. Another things is they need to remove completely the cable boxes for ever. :D

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 21, 2012, 11:24 AM
They are now up to -392 is there a price for this?:D

Maybe if it gets to -400 their head will explode?

wordsworth
Jun 21, 2012, 11:38 AM
Remember when computers were pretty much all the same: boring beige boxes and clunky as hell? The Macintosh was a little different but not radically so, and then along came the iMac…

Apple has grown rich incorporating elegance as integral to its design solutions. As far as I can see, TV is ripe for a similar overhaul. I have yet to find a TV truly worthy of its place in my living room, aesthetically speaking. And not all of us want a cinema-style screen taking over half the living room. Personally I'd like to strike a balance, as with my other stuff that's in there. A twenty-four inch TV would suit me fine. And I would like it to look beautiful before it's switched on. Of course, I also want a great picture, great sound, easy to use, and any other bells and whistles Apple cares to add that enhance the overall experience.

However, it's my living room, so I want the TV to earn its place there in every way. How it looks as a piece of 'furniture' is very important to me and, I hope, lots more people. Screen size options for those with a more modest requirement would be welcome, certainly in my home. I hope Apple understands this.

TreyCox
Jun 21, 2012, 11:39 AM
I have a very strong feeling that there is a link between the iMac not yet being refreshed and all of this talk about television. iMacs with ivy bridge, larger, higher resolution screens & tv capabilities being released later this year is a very high possibility.

iapplelove
Jun 21, 2012, 11:40 AM
Why is that whenever Apple looks into larger displays, it has to be a new AppleTV? Why not the more obvious answer of a new Cinema Display? After all, a new 4Kish display for Pro users and one to compliment the new MacBook Pro would make sense.

You think a monitor that cost 4k in this day in age where LCD technology has been dropping in price makes sense? And apple just targeting "pro users" ?

Maybe it's not the obvious answer for a reason

LaWally
Jun 21, 2012, 11:50 AM
My LG HDTV is 4 years old. In 8 years when it's time to replace it, I will buy another LG TV. Apple will have been in and out of the TV business by then.

theluggage
Jun 21, 2012, 11:52 AM
Y'know, if you look at the current TV equipment market, it bears a staggering resemblance to the pre-iPhone cellphone market.

1. A user-interface train wreck. Here's the remote from my latest bit of TV kit... I need 2 other remotes to operate my stack.
344410

Methinks Apple could improve on that.

2. Lots of 'smart' features that people aren't really using because of fragmentation, the aforementioned UI train wreck, and all sorts of bizarre restrictions and combinations of things that you can't do because of DRM paranoia and the other train wreck that is DLNA (the only moderately useful DLNA client/server I've encountered is XBMC, and when open-source is easier to use than proprietary then you know you're in trouble). E.g. the box that the above remote came with would, potentially, be a great media server if it were not for the fact that apart from recorded TV or re-grabbed DVDs, the only thing you can get *into* it is MP3 audio and *that* it refuses to serve over DLNA or even to the proprietary iPad app (which is the only thing that will play HD video recordings from it). It's not just that particular box: my Samsung TV does have a fairly good BBC iPlayer implementation (which is nice) but suffers from hugely complicated menus and bewildering picture enhancement options, and the DLNA client just refuses to play anything or bombs out when connected to anything but the official Samsung (Windows only) DLNA server.

3. Content/network providers that need a boot up the derriere. Leave the channels to light entertainment, live sport and premium-phone-call fuelled reality, and offer an a la carte service for quality programs, please.

Apple could sort this out. The ATV2 is a million miles from perfect, but already does a better job of the basics, like playing music and video (including my ripped DVDs and CDs) from my Mac.

Now, Apple is quite likely to say "Well, you don't really need a DVR with a BluRay recorder in it when you can buy or rent everything you need from the iTunes store - so let's get rid of that complexity". On the other hand, if their walled garden just plain works, is easy to use and uses the same sort of minimally intrusive DRM that they've used to date, then some people might buy into that. Any potential for open-ness that the alternative had went away with DRM-ridden HD and the theoretically standard DLNA which only actually works between equipment from the same supplier.

It will be interesting to see what alternative they offer for TV channels, though. In the UK, they'll need BBC iPlayer as a minimum: While I want 'a la carte', I'm not sure I want to give up the option of watching Doctor Who in HD for free.

I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV.

Well, that's pretty much what the current TV manufacturers are offering with the "smart" TVs: want this year's new apps? Buy this year's model TV. If, as per the iPad 1, Apple support their TV with major updates for 2 years (and patches after that) then they'll be ahead of the game.

The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

Well, Apple could take that road - how about a big LCD panel with AirPlay and nothing else? It would be great if you wanted to mount your TV on a wall and didn't want the regulation 2 platefuls of spaghetti hanging out the back (when I look behind my TV it ain't pretty).

Even with the ATV2 box plugged into a normal TV, that's 2 remotes to juggle (if you need to adjust volume or picture settings) - even with devices that 'link' (e.g. my Samsung TV has some control over my Sony surround system) its usually patchy and you need to grab the original remote occasionally.

pandamonia
Jun 21, 2012, 11:54 AM
I think ill stick to Panasonic Plasma Tech. LCD can't compete

bbeagle
Jun 21, 2012, 11:59 AM
My LG HDTV is 4 years old. In 8 years when it's time to replace it, I will buy another LG TV. Apple will have been in and out of the TV business by then.

You're right. Apple will be making Holographic displays and Virtual Reality rooms by then. And you'll stick with your old-fashioned TV just to spite Apple.

jlc1978
Jun 21, 2012, 12:06 PM
And you think that Apple will be able to negotiate a price cut from the cable companies based on what leverage?


The content providers, not the cable companies are the target. The discussion goes:

"How would like to be able set your own price, offer subscription or al la carte prices? We get 30% of the price."

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 12:13 PM
My iMac is still functioning perfectly, but I'm one OSX upgrade from the system being obsolete. Why would the TV be any different from Apple's philosophy on their computers? Hardware is what Apple has to sell, so it's in their best interest to force obsolescence for their products.

I do think it's amazing that some of you know the form that Apple TVs will take before they are even announced. How in the world do you know that you will be able to swap out the "core"?? What if it's all integrated like a big iMac? If it's just the "core" that's going to be swappable, why not keep the same form they currently have and use any TV with HDMI input?

Because the average lifespan of a 'computer' is 4-5 years (not including high end users). Apple doesn't expect you to 'replace' your iMac every few years as an average user. They expect you to come back around that quarter cycle unless you are a pro user.

Why would it be different for the TV...oh I don't know...maybe because your iMac is a computer and this is a TELEVISION. Computer tech CHANGES by the year, hell by every 6 months and drastically changes the experienc. Faster CPUs, better memory, better graphics cards, etc.

Television tech does not change that often, other then some ridiculous apps that makers add that does not change the quality of the display.

This issue of 'upgrading every 2 years vs say 7' has been 'discussed' by EVERY major news/tech outlet. Apple KNOWS that people don't just go out and drop $2000-$4000 on a TV every few years. They KNOW that a TV lifespan is in the range of 7+ years.

It is NOT in their best interest here to force an upgrade every two years because they know no one is going to do that with a display that is that expensive.

They DO know that for a smaller price range, like the price of an Apple TV Box, that they can get people to upgrade that.

Rogifan
Jun 21, 2012, 12:19 PM
I expect to be surprised, but its hard for me to imagine a TV from Apple that would be so great that I'd pay a premium for it. I assume its got an Apple TV baked in, and will come with ala carte TV/Cable channel subscriptions -- rather than basic/premium packages you get now from cable companies -- which force you to pay for channels you never watch. THAT would be revolutionary, but why the special hardware?
Tim Cook downplayed the viability of an ala carte option earlier this year so I wouldn't get my hopes up for that.

pgiguere1
Jun 21, 2012, 12:22 PM
Need some new mockups, that picture is getting boring on every apple tv set story.

So true I decided to make one just now.

Rogifan
Jun 21, 2012, 12:31 PM
How much does Apple currently make off the $99 ATV box? Isn't iTunes basically break even? Or maybe it's somewhat profitable now because of Apple's cut of app sales? Earlier this year when Tim Cook was asked about TV he said Apple wasn't looking to make money off content, they make their money off devices. So I could see them getting into the TV business if they think they can build an integrated premium product that people will buy. Sure it might be a low margin business, but couldn't the same be said for the PC business? And Apple seems to do fine there.

CindyRed
Jun 21, 2012, 12:33 PM
You think a monitor that cost 4k in this day in age where LCD technology has been dropping in price makes sense? And apple just targeting "pro users" ?

Maybe it's not the obvious answer for a reason

Uhhh... yeah.. that's what I meant when I used the term "4K". A monitor that cost $4,000... not next gen resolution (retina display) at all... 'cause you know the term 4K hasn't been used for 4000p + resolution for the past five years...

tekno
Jun 21, 2012, 12:37 PM
What is the 'holiday shopping season'? This means nothing if you're not American.

Rogifan
Jun 21, 2012, 12:37 PM
The content providers, not the cable companies are the target. The discussion goes:

"How would like to be able set your own price, offer subscription or al la carte prices? We get 30% of the price."

If it's that simple how come no one else has done it yet (at least not on a mass scale)?

Lance-AR
Jun 21, 2012, 12:41 PM
I just don't understand how this is going to work. Assuming Apple continues to cater to the affluent, wouldn't they already have TVs larger than 55"? Who is going to upgrade to a smaller TV?

blackhand1001
Jun 21, 2012, 12:43 PM
They will if Apple's TV is smarter than the 'Smart TV':

"Siri, show me the latest episode of The Walking Dead."

"The latest episode of The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' started streaming ten minutes ago. Would you like to watch it in progress, or from the beginning?"

"From the beginning."

"Showing The Walking Dead, - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' from the beginning."

No ones buying smart tv's for the smart part. Your just forced to get them if you want the high end sets with the better panels. S-PVA (best for lcd televion) vs MVA (decent but weird off angle gamma shift) or IPS (terrible black levels, off angle glow).

pgiguere1
Jun 21, 2012, 12:43 PM
Uhhh... yeah.. that's what I meant when I used the term "4K". A monitor that cost $4,000... not next gen resolution (retina display) at all... 'cause you know the term 4K hasn't been used for 4000p + resolution for the past five years...

Not exactly, 4k refers to the number of horizontal pixels whereas "XXXp" (720p, 1080p) refers to the number of vertical pixels. For example, you could say a monitor with a resolution of 40961714 has a 4k screen but it only has a vertical resolution of 1714p.

Comparison with current TVs/monitors is pretty difficult however as you can't compare directly an axis or another since 4k screens typically have a wider aspect ratio than the current 16:9 standard. At some point maybe we will start talking about screen resolutions in megapixels, just like with cameras.

Rogifan
Jun 21, 2012, 12:45 PM
Here's what Tim said at Apple's annual shareholder's meeting earlier this year:

http://www.macworld.com/article/1165542/cook_apples_success_take_center_stage_at_annual_shareholder_meeting.html
Cook, in response to a shareholder urging the company to use its cash hoard to come up with an alternative to Netflix, Hulu, and the like for video-content distribution: “There are plenty of apps that provide content, and users want those apps. We get profit from selling devices...our focus is not on making a lot of money in content...An a la carte video system isn’t likely to arrive quickly, because the money is big for the companies involved.”

Robin4
Jun 21, 2012, 12:58 PM
I am getting tired of this rumor. How long has it been, 2-3 years? I gave up cable a long time ago. In a weak moment I checked them out again, I am human after all, I can make mistakes. I want to see Game of Thrones and Newsroom, can't buy it at iTunes, does a grandma have to rip the stuff? Nah, couldn't get past their two year contracts and plan a,b,c, etc. Someone has to step up, not fair.

pgiguere1
Jun 21, 2012, 01:01 PM
So true I decided to make one just now.

MacRumors community logic: I do exactly what the top comment asks. Then get downvoted. :confused:

Jaro65
Jun 21, 2012, 01:05 PM
Image (http://www.greatestcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/first-tv-set-images-by-thephora.jpg)

...And it had an integrated sound bar! :)

CausticPuppy
Jun 21, 2012, 01:18 PM
Hmmm.

My theory:

Apple is making a 7-inch iPad, but it won't be sold as a standalone product. It will be the remote control for the TV. :eek:

Mad-B-One
Jun 21, 2012, 01:19 PM
I hope it isn't just 60" and above. My sister had that problem - she got one of these monster TV and then realized you cannot compfortably watch TV on it because the couch was too close (so would mine be) and you actually had to look left and right to see what was going on. She brought it back and went - I think - with 52" instead.

barkomatic
Jun 21, 2012, 01:31 PM
Tim Cook downplayed the viability of an ala carte option earlier this year so I wouldn't get my hopes up for that.

You may be right, but then I'm wondering what the stand out feature to motivate me to buy a TV made by Apple? A metal enclosure with a glowing Apple on it somewhere? No thanks.

marksman
Jun 21, 2012, 02:07 PM
I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV. The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

I'm guessing that people would make rude suggestions about how Apple could recycle their old TV:D

That would be an android tv.

RalfTheDog
Jun 21, 2012, 02:09 PM
4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

The cable companies would prevent you from downloading content of that size. Honestly, I expect the cable companies to set up a two level cap system. If you have TV service, they give you one cap, if you do not, they will give you a much smaller cap. This will prevent people from ditching their Cable TV service. I am sure the resulting firestorm will keep the lawyers happy.

And you think that Apple will be able to negotiate a price cut from the cable companies based on what leverage?

So lets see how this goes down.

Apple: Your current customers send you $120 per month for their channels only some of them they want. Our proposal is that you allow them to pick channels, you "fairly" price those channels. And the vast majority of your customers start sending you significantly less than $120 a month.

Cable Company: So you are suggesting I give up most of my profit.

Apple: But your customers will like you more and they will buy my TVs.

Cable Company: Not interested.

Apple: But some customers will sign up for a package of cheap channels who aren't already your customer.

Cable Company: I basically have a near monopoly in the areas I serve and me and the other cable companies currently have about 70% of American households as customers. 10% of American households are super broke and will never be able to buy anyting. So even if you delivered the ENTIRE remaining 20%, you wouldn't increase my customer base enough to cover any significant decrease in the monthly payments I get. I think this conversation is over. Call me when you have a proposal that involves my customers sending me MORE money each month. Then we can talk.

The only way this could work is if Cox approached the phone companies, "You want to wipe out the cable company, we will help you do it."

Apple usually doesn't compete on price anyway, they compete on integration and user experience. A simple add-on box like the current AppleTV can't act as hub for all the other components of your entertainment system. A TV is the main interface to all (most of) those other boxes. Some of those boxes can already be controlled by apps on iOS devices. If Apple were to release a TV powered by iOS, they could work with component / set top box manufacturers and build better apps / interfaces for controlling those devices...



Easy solution, put four or five HDMI input ports and one output port on an AppleTV box, then use the box as a smart switch. If they wanted to be very cool about it, let the boxes record and stream content between themselves, as long as they are on the same subnet. It would be quite easy to add multiroom DVR functionality.

What most people do not want is to be stuck with a TV that is the wrong size. In my house, anything less than a 65 gets lost. In a small apartment, a 56 would dominate the room. Give us a smart set top box, then, let us choose our display.

xVeinx
Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM
Here's what Tim said at Apple's annual shareholder's meeting earlier this year:

Which really is the point. There are too many college and pro sports teams looking to get their own channels, too many groups vying for every dollar that can be had for programming. The fractured nature of the groups involved, along with the increasing frequency where cable companies are locked out from certain programming due to pricing disputes, are more than sufficient to keep Apple away. They [Apple] understand how to negotiate with media conglomerates. They also know they can't negotiate with everyone, and the increasing amount of scrutiny they will take by the FCC and Justice Department isn't worth the legal battles and cost. If Apple is the platform to beat, then the media companies, sports teams, etc. will make sure that their programming is available in an app or two.

charlieegan3
Jun 21, 2012, 02:44 PM
So true I decided to make one just now.

Much nicer!:D

CindyRed
Jun 21, 2012, 02:56 PM
Not exactly, 4k refers to the number of horizontal pixels whereas "XXXp" (720p, 1080p) refers to the number of vertical pixels. For example, you could say a monitor with a resolution of 40961714 has a 4k screen but it only has a vertical resolution of 1714p.

Comparison with current TVs/monitors is pretty difficult however as you can't compare directly an axis or another since 4k screens typically have a wider aspect ratio than the current 16:9 standard. At some point maybe we will start talking about screen resolutions in megapixels, just like with cameras.

Thanks for clearing that up, pgiguere1. I was just using the generalized term being used for super high density resolution in "wider than tall" picture planes.

Either way, I hope this doesn't detract from my original point. Which is: Some sensational analysts tend to forget that Apple's primary mission isn't to create another GoogleTV, but they make other things that need LCD screens too, like monitors.

TheBearAk
Jun 21, 2012, 03:06 PM
I agree that Apple should stay away from the screens market. Simply because they have a history of overcharging for their screens in the first place.

The answer for Apple TV is much simpler. Use the wireless trackpad as the input device and turn the AppleTV into an iOS device.

Giant iPad using a trackpad for the touch.

pgiguere1
Jun 21, 2012, 03:22 PM
Either way, I hope this doesn't detract from my original point. Which is: Some sensational analysts tend to forget that Apple's primary mission isn't to create another GoogleTV, but they make other things that need LCD screens too, like monitors.

I would personally be more interested in a new Thunderbolt display than in an Apple television set. While the fact that the current one has an integrated Thunderbolt hub makes it really advanced, it almost feels outdated with the new Mac laptops having USB 3.0 and a MagSage 2 connectors. And what else are you supposed to hook that display to? The iMac 27" has the same screen already and the Mac Pro still doesn't support Thunderbolt. I also doubt many Mac mini users buy it since they could have simply bought an iMac in the first place.

Of course Apple could just quietly update the current model with MagSafe 2 and USB 3.0, but why would they not have updated it alongside the Mac laptops at WWDC? I have a feeling the Thunderbolt display will only be updated once the iMac is, supposing they would both share the same (new) screen like they currently do. For now they include the 10$ MagSafe 2 adapter for free with the display, but I don't think they will keep a display without USB 3.0 and MagSafe 2 for years. They will probably have a revision in a year or less. Hopefully it'll be a major one. I'd glady pay 1k for a 30" TBD with 3200x1800 resolution.

TallManNY
Jun 21, 2012, 03:30 PM
The content providers, not the cable companies are the target. The discussion goes:

"How would like to be able set your own price, offer subscription or al la carte prices? We get 30% of the price."

Hmmm, well if they can pick off the sports programs that will be big. But the cable companies also control the internet pipes that bring this stuff in. So they will just raise internet pricing to make up for some of this if folks starting cutting the cable cord. (Full disclosure, I cut the cable cord years ago and use free HD over-air broadcast for the basic channels.)

pgiguere1
Jun 21, 2012, 03:33 PM
I agree that Apple should stay away from the screens market. Simply because they have a history of overcharging for their screens in the first place.

I wouldn't say they overcharge, it's just that they limit their offering to the very high-end. Have you shopped for a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor recently?

Here are some competing models: Dell UltraSharp U2711, DoubleSight DS-277W, NEC MultiSync PA271W, Fujistu P27T-6.

They are all either as expensive or more expensive than the Thunderbolt Display, and have plastic cases, no integrated speakers, no integrated HD webcam, no Thunderbolt Hub, daisy chaining, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, good looking design, resale value...

The 999$ Thunderbolt Display is actually a pretty good deal for what it is. The 27" Cinema Display released before it also was. Same for the 30" Cinema Display before that, can you imagine it had a 2560x1600 resolution 8 years ago?

superman23
Jun 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
it better not gave glare

unfortunately, it's almost a given that Apple will cover it in a sheet of glass :(

hey can anyone apply a 50" zagg skin for me??

MacDav
Jun 21, 2012, 04:34 PM
How forward looking, but I'm guessing that Apple will be a bit more conservative with an opening bid of 720p

With iPad 3 and Laptops with retina displays above 1080P HD pixel count, you think they will have a TV lower than 1080P? Why would you think that? I'll be waiting for your answer. It will be very interesting listening to your convoluted logic.

nemaslov
Jun 21, 2012, 05:42 PM
TV's are obsolete, and the entire content delivery model is failing, according to every industry survey and analyst and even the CEOs of the major networks.

Apple should be ready, but wait patiently for it to finish itself off first before replacing it with their own start-to-finish solution.

"TV" should just be an app on your iMac or iPad, full screen or Picture-In-Picture. Apple shouldn't even need to build any new hardware into an iMac, but convert the "channels" on their side, & stream over the net to your device.

...but there's never been anything on tv so important I had to see it at that moment. I'll continue to get my video via Netflix, Vimeo, YouTube & TPB.

Many people I know have a 50" TV or Monitor to view films and shows either via discs or from places like Netflix. Lots of people hate watching on there Macs or iPads when they are at home and not alone. I am one of them.

G51989
Jun 21, 2012, 06:08 PM
I just don't understand how this is going to work. Assuming Apple continues to cater to the affluent, wouldn't they already have TVs larger than 55"? Who is going to upgrade to a smaller TV?

Apple " caters to the affuent ". Are you high? I can't think of one super expensive product they make.

Ryth
Jun 21, 2012, 06:36 PM
I am getting tired of this rumor. How long has it been, 2-3 years? I gave up cable a long time ago. In a weak moment I checked them out again, I am human after all, I can make mistakes. I want to see Game of Thrones and Newsroom, can't buy it at iTunes, does a grandma have to rip the stuff? Nah, couldn't get past their two year contracts and plan a,b,c, etc. Someone has to step up, not fair.

Around 2 years. The iPhone rumor was around for 1.5+ years. The Tablet almost 2 years ago.

Don't worry. Content providers are realizing their current model is dying. They'll have to adapt.

----------

Apple " caters to the affuent ". Are you high? I can't think of one super expensive product they make.

MBPro Retina is pretty expensive (top of the line one)...same with a top of the line Mac Pro (10K+)

But the majority of Apple's products , 90%, are inexpensive...because the experience, quality, design, software, eco-system are all worth it.

G51989
Jun 21, 2012, 07:01 PM
Around 2 years. The iPhone rumor was around for 1.5+ years. The Tablet almost 2 years ago.

Don't worry. Content providers are realizing their current model is dying. They'll have to adapt.

----------



MBPro Retina is pretty expensive (top of the line one)...same with a top of the line Mac Pro (10K+)

But the majority of Apple's products , 90%, are inexpensive...because the experience, quality, design, software, eco-system are all worth it.

Yeah I know. But, the Mac Pro is a low end workstation specs wise, and there are workstations wayyyyyy more expensive. And a retina is nice, but again. More expensive stuff out there.

AidenShaw
Jun 21, 2012, 08:12 PM
Apple " caters to the affuent ". Are you high? I can't think of one super expensive product they make.

Did you not notice the recent laptop line that starts at $2199?

G51989
Jun 21, 2012, 08:16 PM
Did you not notice the recent laptop line that starts at $2199?

My laptop ran me 6800. Does that make me " affluent "?

RobertMartens
Jun 21, 2012, 08:20 PM
I totally agree. Also, how will you feel if you pay premium prices for an Apple TV only to have Apple tell you 2 years later than it's new operating system will not run on your still perfectly functioning TV and you will need to replace the TV. The smaller Apple "box" makes so much more sense and could be upgraded regularly without too much grumbling

I'm guessing that people would make rude suggestions about how Apple could recycle their old TV:D

Computers are reprogrammable

besides you could put the computer part in a module that could be replaced.

Rocketman
Jun 21, 2012, 08:53 PM
It is within Apple's capability to introduce and popularize 4K viewing with consumers. It would be a competitive advantage and differentiator. The entry level could be 1080p at retina resolution (2K). Apple TV as hardware could easily be that. It would leave their competitors "flommoxed".

A 4K panel and a 2K panel with the 2K playing 1080 at pixel doubled and 4K at pixel halved resolution. Wallyworld high end TV. :) But 4K is 4K and wait till you see it.

Rocketman

http://forums.macrumors.com/search.php?searchid=28397107

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3119491&highlight=4k#post3119491

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3196270&highlight=4k#post3196270

MacinDoc
Jun 21, 2012, 09:06 PM
I think this will be a ninche product.

I have an LG 1080p 50" plasma that I paid 450 for from retail, the screen on it is amazing, what on earth would convince me to cough up 2 or 3 times the price for an Apple TV?

It will more than likely be a 1080p TV, with maybe appletv built in, well I have a XBMC box hooked so which is far better than the appletv.

It is unlikely it will be a 4K TV as we are years from that being a domestic format for TV, hell most cable content is sent at 720p or at best 1080i making little difference.

Kimbie
Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac. And people bought iPods to function as portable HDDs because the iPod cost less than a similar capacity portable HDD.

If Apple has the will, it certainly has the financial resources to have 4K TV technology mass produced to the point that its price will be reasonable for a premium TV. And Apple has the ability to incorporate the graphics power into such a TV that it should suffer considerably less from problems like pixelation and slow response time than other comparable products. It would be the Retina equivalent of the television, and that certainly seems to be the direction in which Apple is going.

The biggest question is whether Apple thinks it can make enough money off such a product to justify the massive investment risk required to make it happen. And, as you say, the content is the other kicker, as only Blu-Ray has content that would even remotely tax the abilities of a 4K TV. However, upscaled 1080p content could still look crisper on a 4K display than on a 1080p display if the video processor is good enough, much as 1440 X 900 content looks crisper on the rMBP display than it does on the non-retina MBP display.

Randomoneh
Jun 21, 2012, 10:21 PM
With iPad 3 and Laptops with retina displays above 1080P HD pixel count, you think they will have a TV lower than 1080P? Why would you think that? I'll be waiting for your answer. It will be very interesting listening to your convoluted logic.

Well, a laptop usually occupies a higher field of view than a TV does.

G51989
Jun 21, 2012, 11:33 PM
I don't see an Apple branded TV happening any time soon, knowing Apple, they would price it at 4-5K. And most people really wouldn't want to spend that much on a TV, at all.

Hell, I hardly even use my Cable, but I have like 700 channels for 105 dollars a month, and a 60 inch Plasma TV. It'd be hard to get me away from that lol

Exhale
Jun 21, 2012, 11:42 PM
They are all either as expensive or more expensive than the Thunderbolt Display, and have plastic cases, no integrated speakers, no integrated HD webcam, no Thunderbolt Hub, daisy chaining, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, good looking design, resale value...
So you'd rather have a display with worse colour reproduction (especially without user calibration) and budget-monitor ergonomic adjustments, for Firewire connectivity, a webcam, and some low quality speakers? And these advantages scale horribly in multi-monitor setups.

In addition, I should point out the TBD is actually more expensive (significantly so) in several markets. Compare 5500 SEK vs. 8200 SEK for Swedish citizen, for example. Post taxes. Or 784 USD.

Throw in the calibrator and 3rd party mounting kit in ordert to get on even footing with competing displays in what actually matters - and you're insanely far behind.

RobertMartens
Jun 22, 2012, 04:08 AM
Because the average lifespan of a 'computer' is 4-5 years (not including high end users). Apple doesn't expect you to 'replace' your iMac every few years as an average user. They expect you to come back around that quarter cycle unless you are a pro user.

Why would it be different for the TV...oh I don't know...maybe because your iMac is a computer and this is a TELEVISION. Computer tech CHANGES by the year, hell by every 6 months and drastically changes the experienc. Faster CPUs, better memory, better graphics cards, etc.

Television tech does not change that often, other then some ridiculous apps that makers add that does not change the quality of the display.

This issue of 'upgrading every 2 years vs say 7' has been 'discussed' by EVERY major news/tech outlet. Apple KNOWS that people don't just go out and drop $2000-$4000 on a TV every few years. They KNOW that a TV lifespan is in the range of 7+ years.

It is NOT in their best interest here to force an upgrade every two years because they know no one is going to do that with a display that is that expensive.

They DO know that for a smaller price range, like the price of an Apple TV Box, that they can get people to upgrade that.


You are looking to the past to tell us about the future?

What will the future of TV replacements be when Apple is selling great TVs and improving them dramatically every year or two.

Do you really think that looking at what SONY or SAMSUNG have done 5 to 10 years ago will help us predict the market 5 years from now?

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE APPROACHING THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND.

batistuta
Jun 22, 2012, 06:50 AM
"iPad-like touchscreen remote". Telling you, Apple has no plans for a 7 inch iPad and what's leaking out is info on the remote for the Apple TV :p

Makes sense. Touch screen control with built in mic for Siri voice commands. Best remote ever :D
My thoughts exactly - smaller and lighter than the normal iPad, and probably less powerful too in order to achieve that, and to make it less expensive to manufacture.
It could have a resolution of 1024x768 as the old iPad, so scaling is easy and a less powerful graphics chip can be used.
Bundling a tv set and a tablet - that's what Samsung does...

pgiguere1
Jun 22, 2012, 06:57 AM
So you'd rather have a display with worse colour reproduction (especially without user calibration) and budget-monitor ergonomic adjustments, for Firewire connectivity, a webcam, and some low quality speakers? And these advantages scale horribly in multi-monitor setups.

In addition, I should point out the TBD is actually more expensive (significantly so) in several markets. Compare 5500 SEK vs. 8200 SEK for Swedish citizen, for example. Post taxes. Or 784 USD.

Throw in the calibrator and 3rd party mounting kit in ordert to get on even footing with competing displays in what actually matters - and you're insanely far behind.

Yes, I would. I don't require any of those features, the TBD looks very good to me uncalibrated and I don't do a job that requires color accuracy or special screen mounting. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a screen with vibrant colors, wide view angles, large size and large resolution for screen real estate.

And I'd rather have FireWire, Gigabit ethernet and an integrated MagSafe for my MBA, plus an extra TB port to daisy chain a TB drive in the future.

"what actually matters" like you say is very subjective. My point was only that I don't think Apple overcharge for their displays for what they are. Whether you prefer having a monitor with good-looking case, a TB hub with extra ports, integrated speakers/webcam/magsafe or one with precise ergonomic adjustments and color calibration is up to you really.

EDIT: As for international pricing, not everywhere is like Sweden. Here in Canada, the Thunderbolt Display is cheaper than in the US since our dollar is worth a bit less than USD yet they still charge CA$999. Other brands will typically convert US$999 to CA$1099. I can also get a student discount on the TBD whereas I can't with other brands.

Aidan5806
Jun 22, 2012, 07:49 AM
Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

Maybe not yet, but there are some movies that are in theaters in 4K. The avengers is one, and countless other IMAX movies are filmed in much higher resolution.

diamond.g
Jun 22, 2012, 07:57 AM
I wouldn't say they overcharge, it's just that they limit their offering to the very high-end. Have you shopped for a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor recently?

Here are some competing models: Dell UltraSharp U2711, DoubleSight DS-277W, NEC MultiSync PA271W, Fujistu P27T-6.

They are all either as expensive or more expensive than the Thunderbolt Display, and have plastic cases, no integrated speakers, no integrated HD webcam, no Thunderbolt Hub, daisy chaining, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, good looking design, resale value...

The 999$ Thunderbolt Display is actually a pretty good deal for what it is. The 27" Cinema Display released before it also was. Same for the 30" Cinema Display before that, can you imagine it had a 2560x1600 resolution 8 years ago?The major difference between the thunderbolt cinema display and those other displays is they can be used with other sources.

You are looking to the past to tell us about the future?

What will the future of TV replacements be when Apple is selling great TVs and improving them dramatically every year or two.

Do you really think that looking at what SONY or SAMSUNG have done 5 to 10 years ago will help us predict the market 5 years from now?

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE APPROACHING THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND.

I would be curious to see the advances Apple could bring in panel technology. If Apple could get OLED or Crystal LED or 4K from the currently lofty prices (7000+ USD) that would be nice.
But for the prices one currently pays for a quality tv, I don't see replacement every 2 to three years. I suppose if Apples tv was only 500 bucks (for a 50") then one could call it a throwaway tv, but I would be surprised if Apples tv was so cheap and was of higher quality than Samsung or Panasonic displays.

G5isAlive
Jun 22, 2012, 08:10 AM
Jeez i hope they make a model of this that's at LEAST 55". 65 would be great but i don't see that happening. Either way i'm definitely buying one.... complete household integration! :apple:

I was thinking the same thing...will be disappointed if its restricted to smaller sizes. A tv like that is meant to be SEEN.

Randomoneh
Jun 22, 2012, 08:29 AM
Well, a laptop usually occupies a higher field of view than a TV does.

I'd thing after all those years people would know how to calculate it. Seems like I'm wrong, so I'll help you out.

15.4'' [16:10] laptop
Average distance - 24'', usually closer.
@ 24'', screen occupies 30.4 degrees of horizontal view.

@ 10 ft, you'd need 75'' TV for it to occupy same horizontal angle as 15.4'' display at 24''.

Yeah, I see people with 75'' TVs every day :rolleyes:

theluggage
Jun 22, 2012, 08:38 AM
The major difference between the thunderbolt cinema display and those other displays is they can be used with other sources.


Yes - that's the only reason why I haven't bought one - it doesn't even connect to older Macs with mini-displayport.

Apart from that - looking at a local dealer - while there are plenty of 'consumer/business' displays much cheaper than the TBD, the 'colour critical' displays aimed at graphics professionals are all more expensive than the TBD, including several in the $2000-$3000 price range.


I would be curious to see the advances Apple could bring in panel technology. If Apple could get OLED or Crystal LED or 4K from the currently lofty prices (7000+ USD) that would be nice.


The problem with 4k is how you're going to get that 'down the pipe' to consumers. I don't want 4k at the expense of it being compressed to buggery - some over-the-air or streamed HD content already suffers from that.


I don't see replacement every 2 to three years.

Neither would I, but OTOH that's what you're looking at with most current 'smart' TVs if you want the latest internet/media player features.

However, it depends on your criteria for 'replacement' - if you look at the iPad, the iPad 1 is now over 2 years old - it got upgrades from iOS 3 -> iOS 4 and (with a few omissions) iOS 5. It's not going to get iOS 6, but that doesn't mean it's going to get kicked off the App store.

Personally, though, I think the idea of an Apple TV is promising, but I wouldn't touch it if it didn't have at least a HDMI-in.

SPUY767
Jun 22, 2012, 08:58 AM
4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

Because that would only cost $8-10k.

----------

Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac.

None of those statements are accurate. A DVD-RW may have cost a couple hundred Dollars at the time, but it was nowhere near the cost of an iMac. Apple doesn't manufacture displays, they buy panels from LCD manufacturers and yields on displays of that resolution are incredibly low. The first iPod I got was $400. The year prior I had gotten a portable hard drive 8x larger for approximately the same price.

MonkeySee....
Jun 22, 2012, 09:05 AM
They could just upgrade the current Cinema Displays. They can keep the name and just have it do "Smart" stuff. Would be good to have a TV that you can use as an external monitor then switch it to a TV mode when you're done working.

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2012, 09:32 AM
Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac.

The first Super-Drive Imac was in Jan 2002, and was $1799.

The Pioneer DVR-A03 was introduced the year before with an MSRP of $995, and was selling for hundreds less than that.

Perhaps you're thinking of the year before, when Compaq and Apple introduced the Pioneer DVR-103 in the Presario and PowerMac lines. That was the first consumer grade DVD-R, and professional DVD writers at the time were very pricey.

(The DVR-103 was the OEM model number for the DVR-A03.)

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 22, 2012, 09:46 AM
I don't see an Apple branded TV happening any time soon, knowing Apple, they would price it at 4-5K. And most people really wouldn't want to spend that much on a TV, at all.


Yikes, where exactly do you get that pricing from? I don't understand why so many seem to think Apple will set such a premium. Of course most people assume that premium price would be $2,000-$2,500... not $5,000...

Apple's not stupid. They realize it will take a lot of factors and elements to get people to buy their TVs. Look at their strategy on products that past few years. The iPhone (of course with subsidy) is incredibly competitive pricing. Everybody was thinking that Apple's tablet would cost upwards of $1,000.. and what happened? $499, and now as low as $399.

Apple has gotten very skilled at making very high quality, inexpensive products. I think the iTV (iPanel?) will very closely parrallel how the iPad completely changed how people view the tablet.

I think the iTV will start at $999.

ncbill
Jun 22, 2012, 10:53 AM
Do people really wait 7 years to buy a new TV?

In less than 3 years, I upgraded my 720p, 42" HDTV ($875) to a 1080p, 50" ($650) - both Panasonic plasmas.

Currently my local Costco has a 70" LED-backlit Sharp LCD HDTV for under $2500.

In another 3 years I'd be willing to pay $1000 for that or something comparable.

Exhale
Jun 22, 2012, 12:23 PM
Do people really wait 7 years to buy a new TV?
Uh, yes?
A statement like that strongly suggests you're very young.

iEvolution
Jun 22, 2012, 12:33 PM
I know it has been said, but I can't see the Apple TV being successful if they simply base it off the current iTunes model, everything is ridiculously expensive.

Apple would have to make a subscription service that is desirable if they expect to suceed. A TV with Siri won't cut it.

Alternatively a TV with incredibly high resolution but that wouldn't work either since video technology is stalled at 1080.

Then there is the issue of the Apple box set, no one is going to buy a TV when they can add iTunes intregation with the 100 dollar Apple TV set.

The TV market is jam packed with competition a just can't see Apple succeeding in this segment unless there is something very special going into it.

MacinDoc
Jun 22, 2012, 03:59 PM
The first Super-Drive Imac was in Jan 2002, and was $1799.

The Pioneer DVR-A03 was introduced the year before with an MSRP of $995, and was selling for hundreds less than that.

Perhaps you're thinking of the year before, when Compaq and Apple introduced the Pioneer DVR-103 in the Presario and PowerMac lines. That was the first consumer grade DVD-R, and professional DVD writers at the time were very pricey.

(The DVR-103 was the OEM model number for the DVR-A03.)
Yes, I believe you're right, it was the Power Mac and not the iMac.

My point was that Apple could use its market position to make 4K TV a commercially viable, although expensive, option for buyers. (Perhaps a 60" Apple 4K TV would cost $4000; very pricey, but cheaper than anything comparable available at the time.) But it would be a massive, incredibly expensive risk, because to bring the price down to where even the most spendthrift consumers would buy it, Apple would have to build hundreds of thousands of them, before knowing how they would be received by consumers.

ghettochris
Jun 22, 2012, 10:30 PM
Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

New Apple 4k video camera for cheap ($299-999) simultaneous release would be awesome.

kristoffer4
Jun 23, 2012, 02:48 AM
So true I decided to make one just now.


Very cool! :cool:

jlc1978
Jun 23, 2012, 08:20 AM
Hmmm, well if they can pick off the sports programs that will be big. But the cable companies also control the internet pipes that bring this stuff in. So they will just raise internet pricing to make up for some of this if folks starting cutting the cable cord. (Full disclosure, I cut the cable cord years ago and use free HD over-air broadcast for the basic channels.)

I agree - the ISPs are well aware that they are in danger of becoming simply access providers and not content providers, which is why they are establishing bandwidth caps and tiered services. If they can't get a cut of the content like they do with the current cable model they want a cut for delivering it. HBO2go's a first step in that direction. If you get HBO via cable your cable login gives you online access. It's not a big leap to go to charging for online content independent of a cable subscription and making the login your ISP email address so that the ISP gets a cut of the online sale. Content delivered that way would not count against bandwidth caps; unless you access it off of your ISP's network.

jlc1978
Jun 23, 2012, 08:32 AM
If it's that simple how come no one else has done it yet (at least not on a mass scale)?

It looks simple after someone has started doing it. Apple already has by offering on iTunes content that is also offered on cable; what they haven't done (yet) is making it available concurrently with cable. That's coming once companies decide they can make more money by doing that than by giving cable exclusives - money will be the key driver of this change and it simply hasn't been lucrative enough (yet).

If you look at the evolution of television and movies; content delievry has shifted from one method to another as choice (in the form of delivery capacity), and therefore revenue, has increased. Broadly viewed, it moved from 3 or 4 OTA broadcast channels to cable with HBO to cable / satellite with hundreds of choices. Internet content delivery offers a quantum leap in choices and will move content from a cable based model to a new one. ISPs owned by cable companies realize that and is one of the things driving bandwidth caps.

TallManNY
Jun 26, 2012, 07:51 AM
It looks simple after someone has started doing it. Apple already has by offering on iTunes content that is also offered on cable; what they haven't done (yet) is making it available concurrently with cable. That's coming once companies decide they can make more money by doing that than by giving cable exclusives - money will be the key driver of this change and it simply hasn't been lucrative enough (yet).

If you look at the evolution of television and movies; content delievry has shifted from one method to another as choice (in the form of delivery capacity), and therefore revenue, has increased. Broadly viewed, it moved from 3 or 4 OTA broadcast channels to cable with HBO to cable / satellite with hundreds of choices. Internet content delivery offers a quantum leap in choices and will move content from a cable based model to a new one. ISPs owned by cable companies realize that and is one of the things driving bandwidth caps.

Right, but the key thing that you focus on is that "money will be the key driver" and that "therefor revenue, has increased". Everyone talks about this stuff as, "I want to pay less to the cable companies and just buy the shows or channels that I want!" The content providers and the cable companies do not want to offer a solution that results in less dollars being paid monthly to them. So when you start think about individual pricing, think about the iTunes model where it would cost thousands of dollars a month to buy all the shows that a typical family consumes on television each month. Or the product will come with ads that can't be skipped. But there is no, "everything gets cheap but I get all my shows and channels" solution. At least not a legal solution.

I for one am ready to pay for streaming always available shows and sports programs. I paid for NBA TV last year and while there were some technological hurdles and the blackout issues were terribly annoying. Basically, I liked being able to watch NBA games on TVs, computers and my iPad. The service could be made better and the NBA could still make a good profit on this, which they could share with the cable company.

jlc1978
Jun 27, 2012, 05:40 AM
Right, but the key thing that you focus on is that "money will be the key driver" and that "therefor revenue, has increased". Everyone talks about this stuff as, "I want to pay less to the cable companies and just buy the shows or channels that I want!" The content providers and the cable companies do not want to offer a solution that results in less dollars being paid monthly to them. So when you start think about individual pricing, think about the iTunes model where it would cost thousands of dollars a month to buy all the shows that a typical family consumes on television each month. Or the product will come with ads that can't be skipped. But there is no, "everything gets cheap but I get all my shows and channels" solution. At least not a legal solution.

A couple of things:
The iTunes model is only one part of the total picture. It is the ala carte watch anytime part. A content provider would operate more like Netfilx, streaming content but not allowing off line viewing, plus all the content won't be available all the time. It's a subscription based model. The two models can coexist quite nicely.

Content providers and cable companies do not have complementary goals since it's a zero sum game. every $ that's kept by a cable company is less the content provider gets and vice versa. If content providers can get more aggregate revenue from their own streams and the remaining cable subscribers than they wil change how they deliver content. Cable companies will respond with lower caps and hogher access fees to protect their revenue and drive deals where they get a revenue cut to not count against a cap, essentialally updating the cable model for the Internet age.

Ultimately, people may not pay less. The real losers are the 2cd tier cable channels that have low viewership but come as part of the overall bundle. They may not make enough revenue to survive as cable subscriptions dwindle.

jlc1978
Jun 27, 2012, 06:09 AM
Do people really wait 7 years to buy a new TV?

In less than 3 years, I upgraded my 720p, 42" HDTV ($875) to a 1080p, 50" ($650) - both Panasonic plasmas.

Currently my local Costco has a 70" LED-backlit Sharp LCD HDTV for under $2500.

In another 3 years I'd be willing to pay $1000 for that or something comparable.

The average age of a replaced TV in the US is around six years. The average cost of a replaced set was $460, and consumers have learned that any new tv technology will be cheaper in 6 months so they are willing to wait it out.

Apple has several challenges:
1. Come out with a compelling product that does something so much better than existing sets that people want it - such as HD did to regular TV.
2. Price it at a point where people decide to buy now rather than wait for cheer sets from competitors.
3. Come up with a model that is compelling to content providers. A really cool new display tech such as 4k is not that compelling hour content providers to produce content for if the total market penetration is tiny.

Apple can and may come out with a TV, but I see a content delivery system based of the existing Apple TV device as a better strategy because they can build a user base to then migrate to the next big thing.