PDA

View Full Version : Apple Said to Be Working with Foxconn, Corning and Innolux on 'iTV' for 2014 Launch




MacRumors
Aug 16, 2013, 12:38 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/16/apple-said-to-be-working-with-foxconn-corning-and-innolux-on-itv-for-2014-launch/)


Apple is in the development stages of an long-rumored television, partnering with glassmaker Corning, G-Tech Optoelectronics (http://www.gtoc.com.tw/main.html), Foxconn, and display maker Innolux (http://www.innolux.com) -- if a report (http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN3/8100115.shtml) from Taiwan's Economic Daily News is to be believed [Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN3/8100115.shtml&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=Big5)].

The paper has a spotty (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/12/more-claims-of-no-retina-ipad-mini-until-early-2014/) track (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/06/rumors-of-june-launch-for-updated-imacs-begin-to-build/) record (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/ipad-3-coming-this-year-with-2560x1920-resolution-display/) at best (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/26/next-ipad-to-add-five-new-features-including-usb-port/), but it seems plausible that Apple would be talking with potential suppliers for a television as it continues to work on the much-rumored project. EDN did report on Pegatron's and LG Display's involvement (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/05/production-of-7-85-inch-ipad-reportedly-moving-closer-as-more-suppliers-named/) with the iPad mini months ahead of its public launch, suggesting it does have some good sourcing with suppliers.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/08/appletv.pngAccording to sources in the industry, Apple, Corning, Foxconn, and G-Tech Optoelectronics met two weeks ago in US to discuss the production of iTV. Foxconn is seeking for knowledge transfer of Gorilla Glass from Corning to GTOC, so GTOC can perform surface treatments needed for iTV manufacturing.

iTV is scheduled for release during the first half of 2014. 55" and 60" models will be released first, and will incorporate panels from Sakai City, Japan. Due to the weakening relationship between Foxconn and Sharp, Foxconn may eventually turn to Innolux to fulfill the large quantity of display panels needed for iTV orders.In 2012, GTOC was rumored to be making new anti-reflective glass (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/02/apple-to-utilize-anti-reflective-glass-in-next-generation-imac/) for the then-upcoming redesigned iMac. The Economic Daily News also quotes NPD DisplaySearch vice president David Hseih as saying the iTV with Corning glass would launch early next year in 55" and 60" models.

(Thanks to an anonymous tipster for the translation.)

Article Link: Apple Said to Be Working with Foxconn, Corning and Innolux on 'iTV' for 2014 Launch (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/16/apple-said-to-be-working-with-foxconn-corning-and-innolux-on-itv-for-2014-launch/)



JayCee842
Aug 16, 2013, 12:42 PM
I hope they actually bring one soon. I'm still using an old fashion TV because these TV's fail to captivate me, and I'm hoping Apple can. If they do, I'll most definitely get one :)

jav6454
Aug 16, 2013, 12:44 PM
Corning means Gorilla Glass...

ZacNicholson
Aug 16, 2013, 12:45 PM
i feel like we've been hearing this since 2011

Otis Bagotis
Aug 16, 2013, 12:46 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of advantage Apple would have in providing the total package.

Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

Klae17
Aug 16, 2013, 12:48 PM
What good names are there besides iTV, since that is taken? Since we will always be waiting for it to be released: iMComing. Plus we all know what will be airplayed to the big screen.

Lord Hamsa
Aug 16, 2013, 12:50 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of advantage Apple would have in providing the total package.

Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2013, 12:58 PM
Corning means Gorilla Glass...

So says the rumor. Innocent question: why would Gorilla Glass be needed for a TV?

BTW, it's "a long-rumored television," not "an."

Cougarcat
Aug 16, 2013, 01:03 PM
i feel like we've been hearing this since 2011

Because we have. Earlier than that, even. Munster has been predicting a TV for at least three years.

He will be right eventually. :rolleyes:

jav6454
Aug 16, 2013, 01:03 PM
So says the rumor. Innocent question: why would Gorilla Glass be needed for a TV?

BTW, it's "a long-rumored television," not "an."

You never know. Although the article does state that Corning is there for reflective coating.

Oldschoolers
Aug 16, 2013, 01:08 PM
They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?
Is 4k HD really enough to make an impact? I would expect the price point to be out of reach for majority of the market. Hopefully Apple does something that no one else will do or can do.

newdeal
Aug 16, 2013, 01:08 PM
They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?

Yeah right my internet data cap is like a third of the filw size of a 4k movie and I would have to stary buffering a week in advance to stream at that resolution. Apple is killibg off optical drives 4k is impossible to stream right now

jlc1978
Aug 16, 2013, 01:12 PM
They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?

Technology rarely drives change in TV, content does. Until content providers address capabilities of the technology that existing TVs do not support there is not a strong reason for people to upgrade. That sort of change tends to take a long time as the replacement cycle kicks in and users see a compelling reason to upgrade. Even now, 1120p is in the early stages of adoption.

Since Apple is a content delivery company I'd be interested in seeing how they approach an Apple TV if they come out with one.

Gus Van Der Mee
Aug 16, 2013, 01:12 PM
Apple is killibg off optical drives 4k is impossible to stream right now

Going back is not a move forward. Not in this case at least.

iLilana
Aug 16, 2013, 01:25 PM
So long as I can use the tv for games

----------

They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?

nevermind the fact that the only place in canada equipped to handle a 4k stream would be a small town in Alberta called Olds.

foobarbaz
Aug 16, 2013, 01:29 PM
i feel like we've been hearing this since 2011

It's perpetually one year away...

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2013, 01:29 PM
You never know. Although the article does state that Corning is there for reflective coating.

Maybe so. Something seems to have been lost in the translation.

chinab0wl
Aug 16, 2013, 01:45 PM
So says the rumor. Innocent question: why would Gorilla Glass be needed for a TV?

BTW, it's "a long-rumored television," not "an."

In case the Wii(U) makes a comeback?

hsilver
Aug 16, 2013, 01:54 PM
How does offering a choice of 55" and 60" size models make sense?

whooleytoo
Aug 16, 2013, 02:22 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of advantage Apple would have in providing the total package.

Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

'Adding value' to low-margin, commodity markets and then driving up margins is pretty much Apple's strength though.

There are lots of Smart TVs, media streamers and set top boxes of various kinds out there that all have overlapping functionality, and most of them, IMO, are functional but awkward-to-horrible to use. Just this month my cable company launched a new Samsung cable-box/DVR/Wifi-router combo with iOS app integration which sounded so promising and was massively hyped, but is just buggy, sluggish and awkward to use. The smooth, responsive UI just isn't there.

A great-looking TV with a clean, simple UI; together with seamless Airplay & iCloud integration would go a long way. Better yet, an integrated AV receiver so there's never any need for multiple remote controls for switching between inputs. If it's 4K with Airplay Mirroring over 802.11 ac Wifi, it would make a great second screen too.

Not sure I could afford it though.

JayJayAbels
Aug 16, 2013, 02:25 PM
40", 50" and 60" makes sense but like others have said...

1. You need content that will take advantage of the tech... and a good chunk of it.
2. 4k movie downloads would be massive file sizes and streaming would be next to impossible with our current infrastructure.
3. 4k displays are WILDLY expensive and will be for at least the next 2 years or so.

^ Those three points alone leave this idea dead in it's tracks. (Unless it releases in like 2015-2016ish).

If Apple does a TV - it won't be 4k yet.

If, SOMEHOW, they can get the industry to offer content la carte... now something like THAT would be a game changer and worth it.

derbladerunner
Aug 16, 2013, 02:39 PM
How does offering a choice of 55" and 60" size models make sense?

Makes no sense to me either, looks like a poor DigiTimes rumor.

In fact, the whole iTV thing still makes no sense to me.

Why is an Apple 4K iTV screen better than a Sony or Samsung 4K TV screen? What innovation is there in a huge flat TV today?

A screen is a screen, the logic is in the box(es) attached to it and the linked services and content in the cloud, it's easy enough for consumers to connect a HDMI 2.0 cable from the box(es) to the TV set.

Besides, no one makes money in TV sets, terrible business to be in with razor-thin margins.

Apple should just improve the current Apple TV (add SDK for app developers, Bluetooth for game controllers...)

wigby
Aug 16, 2013, 03:08 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of advantage Apple would have in providing the total package.

Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

The same was said about the smartphone market in 2007 but they didn't just jump into it and compete. Apple never does that. They either redefine or disrupt a market by creating a new one that they dominate. Then they usually destroy/cannibalize it and move on before everyone else gets there.

I don't see why TVs can't be different. Apple will introduce a premium TV experience (display+UI+content packaging) for a premium price. This wins over the home theater enthusiasts immediately. From there they can scale the panels, features and packages to meet consumers with lower budgets too but never too low. Their margins wouldn't allow it and they don't want to play in that space anyway. Everyone will relaunch their TVs to copy Apple but by this time, Apple will have moved on to the next thing.

wigby
Aug 16, 2013, 03:20 PM
40", 50" and 60" makes sense but like others have said...

1. You need content that will take advantage of the tech... and a good chunk of it.
2. 4k movie downloads would be massive file sizes and streaming would be next to impossible with our current infrastructure.
3. 4k displays are WILDLY expensive and will be for at least the next 2 years or so.

^ Those three points alone leave this idea dead in it's tracks. (Unless it releases in like 2015-2016ish).

If Apple does a TV - it won't be 4k yet.

If, SOMEHOW, they can get the industry to offer content la carte... now something like THAT would be a game changer and worth it.

While I don't fully believe a 4k panel is in the cards at first, it is definitely possible. There are already 50" 4k displays selling for under $1000. These are good displays in fairly low quantity made by no name Asian companies. If Apple produced millions of 4k displays for a giant product launch, they could produce them really cheap compared to any 4k display on the market.

As far as content, they would never release a 4k display without uprezzing the iTunes catalog either on the server end or perhaps on the TV end itself. A good 4k panel would make HD video look great - better than native 1080p. In any case, there's no reason to stream movies (4k requires 20 mbit/sec which is supported by about 1/5 of US homes) because they can just progressively download them like they do now.

darster
Aug 16, 2013, 03:48 PM
Another crappy LED tv with poor blacks and limited viewing angles. Should be a plasma.

theBB
Aug 16, 2013, 04:20 PM
They'd have to significantly exceed the standard that's out there now. Possibly jump to the 4K HD display in addition to whatever else they've got going on under the hood? Force the (consumer-grade) technology to catch up to them?
I doubt Apple would offer more pixels than a consumer can tell sitting at an average distance from the TV, just to say they completed a checkbox. If it does not make much of a difference for the average consumer, it will not be a headline feature.

cube
Aug 16, 2013, 04:24 PM
Another crappy LED tv with poor blacks and limited viewing angles. Should be a plasma.

Now is OLED time.

Ryth
Aug 16, 2013, 04:32 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of advantage Apple would have in providing the total package.

Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

You know you sound like the people that were talking about the rumored iPhone and used the exact same questions/arguments on why Apple would even bother.

Not ragging on you or anything but the same questions were asked about the iPhone.

Apple has shown they can change the experience of a segment. I'm sure they'll do the same with the TV.

NewbieCanada
Aug 16, 2013, 04:33 PM
Yeah right my internet data cap is like a third of the filw size of a 4k movie and I would have to stary buffering a week in advance to stream at that resolution. Apple is killibg off optical drives 4k is impossible to stream right now

Not at the bit-rate iTunes would stream it at! :p

But seriously, to make 4K TV take off you need lots of content, just like there was with HDTV. Over a fairly short period of time the broadcast networks converted all their scripted programming, all their sports, and eventually all the news, soaps, talk shows, etc.

E.Lizardo
Aug 16, 2013, 04:44 PM
40", 50" and 60" makes sense but like others have said...

1. You need content that will take advantage of the tech... and a good chunk of it.
2. 4k movie downloads would be massive file sizes and streaming would be next to impossible with our current infrastructure.
3. 4k displays are WILDLY expensive and will be for at least the next 2 years or so.

^ Those three points alone leave this idea dead in it's tracks. (Unless it releases in like 2015-2016ish).

If Apple does a TV - it won't be 4k yet.

If, SOMEHOW, they can get the industry to offer content la carte... now something like THAT would be a game changer and worth it.

I've been thinking of other markets Apple has entered.The ipod didn't offer better sound or breakthrough technology(other than being small).But using it was a joy.iPhone?Other phones had touch screens and made calls.How many"My n95 can do all that and it's cheaper"posts did we see after the iPhone launched?I think Apple's biggest advantage is the user experience.They don't need 4k,they just need a top spec display,and if they truly have"cracked"how to make a wildly superior experience at a price people will pay it will be a success.

One thing is for sure,we will still see plenty of"My[insert brand]TV does all that and it costs less!"posts!

Gubbz
Aug 16, 2013, 05:03 PM
On a minor point, they've done all this spotting, but they've failed to notice that Apple still can't call it the 'iTV', the UK television company, ITV (Independant Television) won't let them. I believe there was an original lawsuit and they once again reiterated that it was they're name when Steve Jobs was quoted saying he had cracked it and everyone was talking about iTV again.

Ellmer
Aug 16, 2013, 05:24 PM
What would differentiate this from a Sony, or LG? I'll give you a couple of reasons: No gimmicky 3D, the 'smart TV' elements will all be Mac/ iProduct orientated - not a bunch of cheesey features I'll never EVER use, the iIntergration itself, and any problems with it will involve no more hassle than getting a genius reservation in - rather than getting boomeranged around indian telephone companies for them to run you through troubleshoots you've already ran.

Also: Stop using 'iTV' - it will definitely not be called this.

prowlmedia
Aug 16, 2013, 05:38 PM
Another crappy LED tv with poor blacks and limited viewing angles. Should be a plasma.

With their crappy lifespans, power consumption, weight and other issue. Not saying you are not right though :)

The main thing about these, they would have to be upgradable. Would have to be a plug in Apple TV dongle type thing. If only so Apple have a upgrade path. TV's have a much londer life cycle than computer and Phones etc.

Catalyx
Aug 16, 2013, 05:49 PM
Another crappy LED tv with poor blacks and limited viewing angles. Should be a plasma.

My LED has a very wide viewing angle with great blacks. I compared it to good plasmas in store and there was hardly a difference but some of the cheaper LED/LCD models were quite bad.

Dagless
Aug 16, 2013, 06:24 PM
ITV is already a thing. http://www.itv.com The owner of one of the most watched show in the world, apparently. And definitely the oldest soap.

So says the rumor. Innocent question: why would Gorilla Glass be needed for a TV?

BTW, it's "a long-rumored television," not "an."

My Bravia has Gorilla Glass and I have no idea why! I guess if you throw a Wii remote at it it won't smash.

hwrdrrk
Aug 16, 2013, 06:34 PM
I've been thinking of other markets Apple has entered.The ipod didn't offer better sound or breakthrough technology(other than being small).But using it was a joy.iPhone?Other phones had touch screens and made calls.How many"My n95 can do all that and it's cheaper"posts did we see after the iPhone launched?I think Apple's biggest advantage is the user experience.They don't need 4k,they just need a top spec display,and if they truly have"cracked"how to make a wildly superior experience at a price people will pay it will be a success.

One thing is for sure,we will still see plenty of"My[insert brand]TV does all that and it costs less!"posts!

Most intelligent post I've read in months.

osaga
Aug 16, 2013, 07:57 PM
Low-margins and strong competition makes for a crappy industry to enter late in the game.

Apple is the only company that has the ability to enter low margin markets and be successful. They can demand a premium on hardware because of their software and aesthetic. I think SJ or Tim once said that Apple was primarily a software company. That strategy failed with personal computers, but obviously worked pretty well with phones. Google took the Microsoft approach of distributing just the software (Android) to manufacturers. As seamlessness and ecosystem become more and more important, Apple will always have an advantage. So long as they don't make mistakes, which is why everyone including fans are so critical of them. The gold iphone raises some red flags :)

Ryth
Aug 16, 2013, 09:56 PM
Another crappy LED tv with poor blacks and limited viewing angles. Should be a plasma.

I work at a post house and besides our high end OLED Sony for our top Color Correct suite, our main engineer has been buying LG displays...which was some of the best LEDs out there.

Interesting because Apple is working supposedly with LG on the TV.

Also, not sure if you all read this about OLEDs and Tim Cooks view

[url]http://www.extremetech.com/computing...he-has-a-point[/url

With their crappy lifespans, power consumption, weight and other issue. Not saying you are not right though :)

The main thing about these, they would have to be upgradable. Would have to be a plug in Apple TV dongle type thing. If only so Apple have a upgrade path. TV's have a much londer life cycle than computer and Phones etc.

Think of it this way. You know your iPod Touch or iPhone. Imagine that without a display on it or power button or headphone jack or volume, camera...just the guts of the AX chip, with some blutooth/wi-fi, etc and other key Apple TV features. Now imagine that plugging into a slot in the back of the TV , whether the base or middle back.

That would be your 'brain'. You could upgrade that every few years and probably would cost around $200. It would be like buying an updated iPod/iPad/iPod guts. The TV would play iOS content, games, etc.

Now your 'remote' would be the 'control. It would be almost a 'dumb' remote, but would have a full swipe ability, (think magic pad) etc and that would be how you control the TV and the content/browsing, etc. It would communicate via wifi/bluetooth to the brains. In fact, you wouldn't even need to look at the remote because every thing is swipe that you would see on the screen. It would need 'charged' but without a display you could prob just put a battery in it or have it on a charger and it would keep a long charge.

That's what I believe Apple is coming out with. There is no way they do a camera/kinect type interface like MS or Samsung has. Those ads look so stupid with someone waving their hand to look at content on the screen and having to stay close to it.

I've been thinking of other markets Apple has entered.The ipod didn't offer better sound or breakthrough technology(other than being small).But using it was a joy.iPhone?Other phones had touch screens and made calls.How many"My n95 can do all that and it's cheaper"posts did we see after the iPhone launched?I think Apple's biggest advantage is the user experience.They don't need 4k,they just need a top spec display,and if they truly have"cracked"how to make a wildly superior experience at a price people will pay it will be a success.

One thing is for sure,we will still see plenty of"My[insert brand]TV does all that and it costs less!"posts!

Yep Totally.

As for the display, they are teaming with LG from what I understand and LG makes some really nice TV displays now.

And remember...it's going to be something different in terms of user experience. We might not ever be browsing TV the same way ever. Just like music, phones, etc all changed, TV will change and the rest will scramble to catch up.

darster
Aug 17, 2013, 12:47 AM
I work at a post house and besides our high end OLED Sony for our top Color Correct suite, our main engineer has been buying LG displays...which was some of the best LEDs out there.


OLED, I will agree with you there. They have great color and black level accuracy. However, the LG LEDs still do not come close to the black levels or viewing angles of the the old Pioneer Kuros of 3 to 5 years ago, or close to the top Panasonic Plasmas. Unless Apple goes with OLED, LED will not impress.

----------

My LED has a very wide viewing angle with great blacks. I compared it to good plasmas in store and there was hardly a difference but some of the cheaper LED/LCD models were quite bad.

You can't compare while watching in a store. First of all, LED's are in torch mode. Secondly, plasmas will looked washed out under bright store lights. Now if the room you watch tv is bright, then LED is the way to go. But if you watch movies in the dark, plasma will amaze you, while LED is just meh. Third, a properly calibrated good plasma (done by someone trained and qualified) will look better than a calibrated LED TV. LED's right now, still do not have the quality black levels of plasma, and viewing angles, well, do not even come close. Move side to side and you will see the colors wash out on LED's while that does not occur with plasma.

jonnysods
Aug 17, 2013, 07:36 AM
I wonder what Steve Jobs' big discovery was that would make this work. I remember hearing that he cracked it...

HobeSoundDarryl
Aug 17, 2013, 09:44 AM
Not at the bit-rate iTunes would stream it at! :p

But seriously, to make 4K TV take off you need lots of content, just like there was with HDTV. Over a fairly short period of time the broadcast networks converted all their scripted programming, all their sports, and eventually all the news, soaps, talk shows, etc.

While the overall point is correct, the part I highlighted by bolding is not true. The HD standards reached approval way back in 1986. I don't think we had broad HD adoption on all 4 networks until about 2004 or so: 18 years later. The networks affiliates were basically forced into the change with many waiting as long as they could without losing the free channel of spectrum they were given for making the transition. They hoped their broadcast equipment costs would come down. Some thought they could apply for extensions forever. Some cried that the costs would bankrupt them. Both Satt & Cable also threw up lots of resistance and they had a somewhat easier path to adopting it. Ultimately, the Gov had to give away rebates on converter boxes as part of a final push (and still there's some channels that are not HD yet). And on and on. I would describe the transition as painfully slow with a lot of kicking & screaming resistance.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think a broadcast 4K standard has been established yet, so we're not even to the 1986 equivalent on 4K yet. I can only imagine the backlash and pain if the Gov decided to push for another mandated shift encouraging 4K this soon after the last one.

Will we get to 4K via broadcast? Maybe-to-probably. But if I was placing bets, I'd bet on about 2025 or later (and that might be aggressive considering the approx. 18 years involved in the last one). Just like with HD, the TVs did come first on the national stage. A few local broadcast affiliates went early (I think a few- like one in Raleigh, NC- were broadcasting in the late 90's). It then took a long time for everyone's locals to adopt HD (and has everyone's locals adopted HD even in mid-2013?).

4K probably needs another round of discs for broad distribution of content. I don't know if iTunes and bandwidth could stream it. Maybe h.265 finalization would help with the latter? There's also the "can I see the difference question" which was probably easy going from SD to HD on living-room-sized televisions. Going from 1080p to 4K on television-sized screens may be much more of a challenge, especially for smaller screens around the house. Again, I'd bet on 2025 or later... at best.

NewbieCanada
Aug 17, 2013, 10:44 AM
To clarify, I mean a short period of time once they got started and Im referring to conversion of programming, not of over the air facilities at the local level.

First HD Super Bowl - 2000. Frasier, which was one of the last scripted shows to transition, switched midway through its penultimate season, in 2002.

Obviously there were lots of places you couldnt actually GET HD programming, but if you were lucky enough to live somewhere you could, there was a fair bit available.

Porco
Aug 18, 2013, 12:55 PM
On a minor point, they've done all this spotting, but they've failed to notice that Apple still can't call it the 'iTV', the UK television company, ITV (Independant Television) won't let them. []

ITV is already a thing. http://www.itv.com The owner of one of the most watched show in the world, apparently. And definitely the oldest soap.
[]

*sigh* I really wish MacRumors would put a standard disclaimer explaining this in every Apple Television article that uses the term 'iTV', it's way past annoying now.

Regardless, I am not very confident Apple will make a TV that is particularly impressive without it being stupidly expensive. A new Thunderbolt display that doubles as a TV would make more sense, to go along with the new Mac Pro.

derbladerunner
Aug 20, 2013, 09:08 AM
I think Apple's biggest advantage is the user experience.They don't need 4k,they just need a top spec display,and if they truly have"cracked"how to make a wildly superior experience at a price people will pay it will be a success.

One thing is for sure,we will still see plenty of"My[insert brand]TV does all that and it costs less!"posts!

But why does Apple need to produce its own giant TV screen to improve the user experience?

A screen is a screen, it just shows whatever the HDMI or WiFi signal is sending. The logic and software is mainly in the attached boxes (game consoles, TiVo, AppleTV...) and the cloud.

Picture quality is already very good today, so is TV design. For example, movie buffs not satisfied with LCD can still get top-of line Plasmas from Panasonic. Attaching a box is easy, plug in HDMI cable, done.

Where is the added value of the TV set (flat screen part) for Apple and consumers?

I see why Apple can and should improve its AppleTV box in the future, but why produce a screen?


PS: There is a reason why Apple stand-alone monitors never have been big sellers and probably never will be.

E.Lizardo
Aug 20, 2013, 09:50 AM
But why does Apple need to produce its own giant TV screen to improve the user experience?

A screen is a screen, it just shows whatever the HDMI or WiFi signal is sending. The logic and software is mainly in the attached boxes (game consoles, TiVo, AppleTV...) and the cloud.

Picture quality is already very good today, so is TV design. For example, movie buffs not satisfied with LCD can still get top-of line Plasmas from Panasonic. Attaching a box is easy, plug in HDMI cable, done.

Where is the added value of the TV set (flat screen part) for Apple and consumers?

I see why Apple can and should improve its AppleTV box in the future, but why produce a screen?


PS: There is a reason why Apple stand-alone monitors never have been big sellers and probably never will be.

I absolutely agree.In fact I am hoping that They will offer a "screenless"version that gives all the same features without replacing a perfectly satisfactory TV.I'm simply not in the market for a new display and don't expect that to change for years.In computers they offer both iMacs and Mac Minis,I hope they do something similar with TVs.Seems the potential for sales would be exponentially larger for such a device.Not only for people like me,but also those who want/need a size display that Apple won't be offering.
Time will tell.

otismotive77
Aug 20, 2013, 10:33 AM
this news made my day - i thank the OP.