Foxconn Reportedly Testing Designs for 46-55 Inch Apple Television Sets

newyorksole said:

I'm no insider/analyst, but they will NOT be at CES. Not Apple's style. Too early.

Everyone is so quick to say you won't buy an Apple TV, but wait until they reveal it. Guarantee everyone's story will change. TV Set w/ set top box built it or solely a standalone set top box.

Click to expand...

The same was sais when they released the current Apple TV.

I own one, and still feel it's a pretty stupid device. It's great if you live in the US and watch sports, and buy all your content on iTunes.

In the UK it's basically just s £100 box that lets you buy stuff of iTunes and stream Airplay.

So far Apple have completely ignored the international market with the ATV. I dont see it changing with the launch of a full blown TV. There's still pretty much zero content for it other than via Youtube or iTunes. Apps alone really isnt enough to warrant buying a full blown TV at double/tripple the price anyone else sells it at.

nekonari said:

But that'd be exactly what Apple tries to change. From what Steve Jobs talked about some years ago at AllThings D, he says all those wires, set top boxes, several remotes are ugly, and they are ugly indeed. If a single, sleek TV can take care of all of them, preferably without any special remote controller, wouldn't it be the best solution for your entertainment center? (Although gaming solution is questionable in this case..)

Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above, with (of course) a few caveats. My main TV is a very high end TV that is now 10+ years old. It still has a great picture. During that time I have upgraded my TiVo (original model to Premiere), receiver (went from S-Video to Component...TV doesn't do HDMI), DVD player (to Blu-Ray), added a Roku, added AirPlay via an AirPort express, and implemented whole-house video distribution.

My entertainment center is probably more complicated than the control room of a nuclear power plant with all the wires for power, audio, video, and networking. Not to mention the UPS and connections for my old laptop-now-network-fileserver. So, it would be wonderful if there was a single device that could remove about 80% of that clutter.

But, is that reasonable? Can we expect a single device that will last the 10 years that my TV has so far, and still handle the capabilities that will be expected 5-10 years from now? One thing a 55" TV can't be is disposable.

It would clearly be possible to simplify this mess right now, based on current needs. All you need is the portfolio of content licenses to replace TiVo, Roku, Apple TV, and your cable TV set top boxes with a single unit. That solves most of the problem. But would that solution be upgradeable and expandable enough for future needs? Will 1GB ethernet be enough to handle 4K TV streaming when that comes into being? Will the HDMI interface be upgradable to version N that is required for whatever happens in 5 years? That's a tough question to answer, and that is why, in many respects, separating the big, expensive display from the smarts of the set top box is a good thing.

But maybe Apple will surprise us.

Interested to see what the advantages will be to buying this as opposed to keeping my current setup - READY TO HAVE MY MIND BLOWN... but not getting my hopes up.

SonomaFlyer said:

The only way I see this thing taking off is that is offers a huge difference between AppleTV (@ $99) and Apple Televisions in terms of content.

To succeed, Apple will need to offer some massive upgrades of content access which would be sufficient to shake up content delivery for cable/sat tv in general. That's a high bar. Can Apple do it? Yes, we saw it with the IPhone. We also saw that with Steve Jobs at the helm and lazer sharp focus at Apple - something they've lacked lately.

Click to expand...

When we start talking about content it gets complicated.

If you live inside the US just stop and think for a second.

You've got, what, 50+ countries that Apple sell products in? Now, each of those countries has its own TV content licensing, all has to be distributed in different ways, etc.

It's not going to be a simple thing to do. I just dont see any form of real TV stations being made available that arent already streaming online already.

theluggage said:

Because whereas the 16:9 standard-def fishtank you bought in 2000 was perfectly good for 10 years or more, that sort of attitude won't keep the consumer electronics industry in the manner to which they are accustomed. Hence, you'll find that the 2011 Smart HD TV is already out of date - at least as far as the smart bit goes - and won't be receiving any updates.

People moan about Apple not supporting iOS 6 on the pre-3GS iPhone and withholding a few bells-and-whistles for the latest models, but if they provide the same level of support for an Apple TV then they'll be comfortably ahead of the game.

However, I kinda agree with you: what I'd like would be a "dumb" TV with just a nice display and some HDMI ports that left the "smart" stuff to the boxes you plugged in.

Click to expand...

I second that! There's already some many issues with availability of descent screens, etc. Just make good boxes, and you'll never have to figure out what size screen to build.

MacRumors said:

but that seems difficult to believe given Apple's penchant for avoiding trade shows and for holding its own media events to introduce its products as close as possible to launch.

Click to expand...

When ever apple releases a new product they give months inbetween the announcment and launch.

While Samsung is testing its 46"-55" Galaxy phone...

goobot said:

When ever apple releases a new product they give months inbetween the announcment and launch.

Click to expand...

No they dont. Not always.

I'm not buying it…

Can you see a group of Apple devotees waiting in line every year for the next big Apple TV release? Then the boards would fill up with angry customers posting photos of one flickering pixel on 55-inch display.

I am certain a key distinction would be television software updates. However, Apple would need to revamp its current model to produce serviceable hardware designed to last more than three years.

Why should I buy a TV when I have 100" of wall space and a projector?

It really isn't in Apples best interest to make a fully integrated TV set. This loses them revenue on component upgrade cycles. In the long term it would be smarter to make the "brain" of the device something removable and upgradeable.

zone23 said:

So what your saying is my Macbook Pro from 2 feet is the same as a Retina? Awesome just saved me 2 grand..

Click to expand...

"Retina Display" in the Apple Usage means a display where you can't discern individual pixels at the normal usage distance. This is normally taken to mean that a single pixel is less than one Arc Minute from top to bottom. (One Arc Minute is the limit of standard human vision, more or less.) (All of these concepts were hashed out to death when the iPhone 4 first came out, so you can google 20/20 vision, iphone retina, and get more technical info.)

For a 46" 1080p TV, the retina distance is 72", or 6 feet. So, if you sit 6 feet from your 46" TV, you can't see the individual pixels.

For a 15.4" MacBook Pro with 1440x900 display, the retina distance is 32", which is a bit further than you would use if you were using the MacBook's keyboard, but if you have it up on a stand with a external keyboard, you might well have it that far away. Mine is almost exactly that far away now, but I have it on a stand next to my 24" Dell, and I use it as a secondary monitor. My Dell is 27" from my eyes, and each pixel subtends 1.35 Arc Minutes and I can clearly see Jaggies on text and images where I can't on the MacBook display.

This is not to say that merely sitting further away from your MacBook will magically give it a 2880x1800 display, which it won't, but that asking for a Retina TV is a nonsensical concept. At the standard viewing distances for 1080p HDTVs, you cannot discern the individual pixels (given a picture at that actual resolution, of course).

Dorje Sylas said:

Wy should I buy a TV when I have 100" of wall space and a projector?

Click to expand...

Who said you had to buy it. I'm sure there's lots of people who don't have your setup.

rmwebs said:

No they dont. Not always.

Click to expand...

The iphone has 6 months, Ipad 3-4 months, Atv was a while too but i forgot how much.

Delegator said:

I'm most interested in two aspects of the purported Apple television:
What does it bring to the table beyond what a run-of-the-mill TV will give?

Click to expand...

An Apple logo.

Delegator said:

How will Apple achieve their usual margins without pricing themselves out of the market?

Click to expand...

mklaman said:

i would bet a 55" apple tv would run about $4900and i'll still buy it. (damn you apple!)

Click to expand...

Charge twice as much when you know the faithful will pay for it.
Magic.

nekonari said:

Sure, if you use your MacBook Pro from 2 feet away

Click to expand...

To be fair, anytime I use my MBP on a desk or table, it's about two feet away from my eyes. If it's on my lap it's probably between a foot and 1.5 feet.

I am not that interested in a Apple Branded TV. I have multiple ATVs but they need to add much more content or simply create an App Store for it so others could add more streaming content. Where they could really help is a search engine to search all available content with free content coming up first. I would like to see Verizon FIOS App (now has 75 tv channels that are on the iPad and on XBOX). HBO, MAX etc. So many streaming Apps could be added. Just look at the other boxes (Roku, WDTV, xbox, etc.) to see what is happening.

Then if they really have to have an Apple branded TV just create some kind of SNAP-IN for the ATV STB so that it is more integrated so that as new ones come out you an just pop the old one out and pop the new one in.

Regarding TV Size. I have TVs in pretty much every room. Large TVs in the LR, Man Cave, MBR and smaller TVs in the kitchen Master Bath etc. So, smaller sizes are not a bad idea. I currently have 22" in the kitchen. Would be nice to not have the larger size STB below it. A snap-on ATV (can already do this somewhat) on the back that could pick up all of the content (live tv as well) would work for me. Again, content is very important.

billnye97 said:

Remember when Apple focused on only a few core platforms and became wildly successful? I really think think they might be going a little from the mark with the TV.
Image

Click to expand...

And yet I'm hearing that Apple doesn't have enough products and they're too dependent on iPhone & iPad.

If Apple is doing a full fledged TV its because 1) they think they have an elegant solution to offer that people will buy and 2) they think they need a new revenue stream and the $99 ATV box isn't it.

ScholarsInk said:

Imagine a 4k TV for the price of a high-end "Full" HDTV...

Click to expand...

4k resolution on a 46-55 inch screen would be a total waste. You'd have to sit within 3 feet of it to see how sharp it is. Way, Way beyond retina resolution. Totally impractical.

rei101 said:

Why would I replace my TV?

Click to expand...

That's the multi-billion dollar question. The first company to give consumers a compelling reason to replace their existing large screen TV will win big. 3D was supposed to be that technology and that flop has cost our company and almost everyone else in this industry dearly.

odaiwai said:

"Retina Display" in the Apple Usage means a display where you can't discern individual pixels at the normal usage distance. This is normally taken to mean that a single pixel is less than one Arc Minute from top to bottom. (One Arc Minute is the limit of standard human vision, more or less.) (All of these concepts were hashed out to death when the iPhone 4 first came out, so you can google 20/20 vision, iphone retina, and get more technical info.)

For a 46" 1080p TV, the retina distance is 72", or 6 feet. So, if you sit 6 feet from your 46" TV, you can't see the individual pixels.

For a 15.4" MacBook Pro with 1440x900 display, the retina distance is 32", which is a bit further than you would use if you were using the MacBook's keyboard, but if you have it up on a stand with a external keyboard, you might well have it that far away. Mine is almost exactly that far away now, but I have it on a stand next to my 24" Dell, and I use it as a secondary monitor. My Dell is 27" from my eyes, and each pixel subtends 1.35 Arc Minutes and I can clearly see Jaggies on text and images where I can't on the MacBook display.

This is not to say that merely sitting further away from your MacBook will magically give it a 2880x1800 display, which it won't, but that asking for a Retina TV is a nonsensical concept. At the standard viewing distances for 1080p HDTVs, you cannot discern the individual pixels (given a picture at that actual resolution, of course).

Click to expand...

I hear what your saying but tell that to the pushers of 4K TVs. I personally would love to sit on top of the TV and not see the pixels.

wkadamsjr said:

Why would you replace your phone with an iPhone in 2007? If Apple can't make something better, theoretically they wouldn't get involved.

Click to expand...

Most smartphones sucked back then.
They were slow, bulky, had no battery life, had poor interfaces, and had crummy apps.

There were a dozen things that could have been improved upon.

TVs? Sure, Apple could just improve the Apple TV product. Better interface, apps, Siri, DVR, etc. But the TV itself? What are we lacking?

pcmxa said:

Retina displays are useful for devices we hold close, but with my tv I never watch it from closer than about 9 feet. So it being retina would serve no actual value to me I would just be paying extra for something my senses can't differentiate. My laptop's screen is perspectively larger than the 70" projection I watch movies on when the laptop is on my lap.

Click to expand...

And there's a difference between displaying text and hand-crafted images, and displaying natural images, especially with motion involved. With moving images (which is what TV is all about), you have little chance seeing the difference between a retina and non-retina display.

Perhaps the CPU, GPU, WiFi card, RAM, SSD, etc will all be in little removable trays so they can be replaced without replacing the whole unit.

Then again, perhaps everything will be glued in place so it'll be REALLY thin and you can take up 13.629mm less space on your TV stand

Xenomorph said:

Most smartphones sucked back then.
They were slow, bulky, had no battery life, had poor interfaces, and had crummy apps.

There were a dozen things that could have been improved upon.

TVs? Sure, Apple could just improve the Apple TV product. Better interface, apps, Siri, DVR, etc. But the TV itself? What are we lacking?

Click to expand...

An os streamlined into the tv experinace. Similar how they streamlined the phone functionality into the os of the iPhone.

is it me? cos I personally think that a 1080p for a tv > 40inch looks sooooooo terrible.

(i was gonna add >30 inch, but changed it to 40 to be on the safe side)

I was reading thru the thread, why is everyone happy with their huge sized TV? some sort of self gratification(delusion?) for buying something big n expensive?