Apple Nixed Plans for Apple-Branded Television Set 'More Than a Year Ago'

[amarcus]

I'm really surprised if Apple couldn't think of compelling features to differentiate themselves. What I'd like to see:

• Seamless input switching
• HDR + 4k panel (content supplied by iTunes)
• Auto switch off panel when nobody is watching
• AirPlay Mirroring
• FaceTime
• Siri

I'd happily pay an Apple sized premium for even half these features!

Adam

 

[Tech198]

So, basically an Xbox Kinect... with added functionality.

Our TV entertainment is turning into more of a all-in-one system...

 

[Lepton]

I never thought a real TV set was the way to go. There are too many technologies people want in a monitor. LCD? Plasma? OLED? Projection? 32 inch? 50 inch? 80 inch? There can be no one-size-fits-all set.

Let people get whatever monitor with an HDMI input, and give them a box with software/hardware. Like Apple TV, but a few differences. There should be an HDMI input and an HDMI output. This lets you put the box in-line between the cable box (if any) and the monitor. Thus it can switch from TV to ApplePlay automatically with no fiddling. It could also overlay imagery/sound onto the TV content, for maybe a sports ticker or controls or whatever.

And very important, the box must be able to send controls to the monitor to adjust things like brightness and contrast etc. I believe such HDMI extensions are in the works. It should also be able to similarly control the cable box, to change channels etc. Something like CableCard or a follow-on.

For a remote control, it should be similar to the current AppleTV one, but with a wireless tech like Bluetooth, and very important, a microphone for Siri. Optionally, a pointing system ala Wii

Do those things and you've got yourself one hot media system.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I have my doubts about 4K TV taking off, let alone a high priced Apple version. 4K has been out for a while and I don't know anyone that owns one or even talking about getting one. Will this go the way of 3D television?

3D stalled out because it required 3D glasses, gave some people headaches, and added a lot of cost to post and production. In short, it was too cumbersome. 4k has none of those hurdles to overcome. IMO TV and camera manufacturers are going to phase out HD equipment the same way they phased out SD equipment.

 

[jpn]

This would be a disappointing day for me. I want Apple in charge of the hardware. I very much value the amount of effort they put into design and integration. It might be what I like the most about Apple. It is definitely their niche.

hi,

i actually feel the same way you expressed. i hope that as long as i am alive apple is controlling the entire experience, from hardware design through end-consumer packaging. it gives most of us great pleasure to experience this kind of apple design and execution.

but, i stand by my prediction: there will come a time (sooner, rather than later) when (again) apple licenses its computer hardware to other companies. this is a natural outcome of even its current strategy that has been evolving over the last 10 years.

the interesting part is about the roles of its physical apple stores: apple's lopsided computer market share (great in USA, but not even in the top 5 in most markets in the rest of the world) means that to ensure its software platforms' share is #1, then these brick and mortar stores, especially outside of the USA, need to grow awareness share. so these stores outside the USA need to grow in number greatly before apple can really replace microsoft and android as market share leaders in software.

apple's dependence on software and services as its primary strategy can not go at a faster pace than to what extent it has grown its total market share world-wide.

 

[RogerWilco]

So what is the next big thing? There has to be a next big thing or the market will throw a hissy fit. And please don't claim it's the watch. The car? Don't make me laugh - that's at least ten years away.

 

[Michael Scrip]

3D stalled out because it required 3D glasses, gave some people headaches, and added a lot of cost to post and production. In short, it was too cumbersome.

4k has none of those hurdles to overcome. IMO TV and camera manufacturers are going to phase out HD equipment the same way they phased out SD equipment.

The jump from SD to HD was huge. Everyone welcomed that. Not only did HD provide more resolution... large flat-panel HD displays finally made it economical to get a huge screen in your living room.

Now everyone has a large HDTV in their living room... but will the extra resolution 4K provides be that important?

I'm not so sure.

Depending on how far you sit from the TV... you might not even see the difference between HD and 4K

And then there's production. Shooting in 4K... editing in 4K... and delivering in 4K are waaay more intensive than HD.

You're right... nobody shoots in SD anymore. But will they all move to 4K? And will it be worth it for all the extra effort they have to do?

We are all thankful that everything has moved to HD... but I'm not sure the move to 4K will follow in similar footsteps.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

I think you are right! It is not the TV but the content and the delivery method! I can't see Apple buying Verizon, Comcast or Direct TV because they need something that would work Worldwide! Maybe Apple will put their own satellites in Space?

Um....

 

[gugy]

Never really expected to see an Apple TV set. IMO that was always a pipe dream of few people.
Rather Apple focus on the experience, content distribution and UI of ATV box.

 

[Swordylove]

They could just make what is essentially a giant iMac with TV tuner and the usual TV I/Os (with AppleTV built-in of course). And name it MacTV. Damn I'm brilliant.

 

[osaga]

I don't know why Apple hates making stand alone screens so much. I for one would love a beautiful thin TV from Apple. I would buy one every decade. OR if they built in all the computing components (LIKE THEY DO WITH THE IMAC) I'd buy one every 3-4 years. And I would: facetime, surf the world wide web, use my face as my Apple ID, play games using the 3d sensors, channel surf live content, rent movies from itunes, subscribe to hbo and more through itunes, control my home automated stuff, ask siri questions sometimes even when the tv is off, conduct conference call for work and for fun, stream personal documents from my imac, type emails on the sofa with a wireless keybaord, check my calendar, look at instagram, etc. EASY, Apple stop dragging your feet.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The jump from SD to HD was huge. Everyone welcomed that. Not only did HD provide more resolution... large flat-panel HD displays finally made it economical to get a huge screen in your living room.

HD took forever to start catching on though (first hit the US in '98, 25% adoption in 2008, and we are currently at like 70-80% adaption depending on who's numbers you see), and if companies didn't just stop making SD gear the transition would've even been more drawn out. Without the federally mandated move from analog to digital broadcasting (which meant everyone needed to buy new broadcasting and receiving gear anyway so why not go HD) HD wouldn't have happened until streaming, IMO, because it would have been too cost prohibitive.

With streaming though, it's just more bits flying across the Internet. I mean, in something like 5 years YouTube videos when from 240p to 1080p and it all happened in the background. Same for when Netflix went from SD to HD and now to 4k. Little to no disruption on the consumer side of things (unlike the analog to digital switch).

Depending on how far you sit from the TV... you might not even see the difference between HD and 4K

I doubt people will actually notice (just like most people didn't realize they were watching SD on their HD TV) but they'll believe the marketing so they'll think they'll notice and that perception, plus our consumer-centric culture, is all that it will take to move product.

And then there's production. Shooting in 4K... editing in 4K... and delivering in 4K are waaay more intensive than HD.

The barrier for entry is actually surprisingly low. There are a number of 4k cameras out today including inexpensive GoPro's and DSLRs. 3D requires specialized products where as shooting and editing in 4k is just like HD (or even SD) just with bigger file sizes (and sometimes smaller file sizes thanks to better compression). I've got a 2009 Mac Pro and I can edit 4k on it in Premiere Pro so you don't even need a beast of a machine for it. Yeah, I have to edit at 1/2 or sometimes 1/4 res if I'm pulling enough streams, but even at 1/4 res that's still HD quality on playback.

Take a look at Craigslist ads in NY or LA and you'll see at lot of no-budget movies, music videos, TV pilots, etc., shot in 4k and looking to be finished in 4k. Need it or not, it is already on it's way to becoming the new norm.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I still think Apple is seriously looking at a real TV set in the 55" to 85" range. With good reason: they may soon be able to get access to Sharp's flat panel factories in Japan for a song to build such a TV at surprisingly reasonable cost.

Since Sharp has expertise in very thin IGZO flat panels, the technology is there for 55" to 85" IGZO flat panel TV's with four HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 connectors that can display 3840 x 2160 resolution video even from the new Ultra HD Blu-ray players that won't cost a fortune to build like what LG and Samsung have done with OLED panels. And it will incorporate essentially the Apple TV box functionality right in to the TV plus full voice control using Siri technology.

 

[lincolntran]

The funny thing is all the idiot apple bloggers who are now convinced the tv was stupid. Of course it was, but it never stopped them from foaming at the mouth at the time. They couldn't be told different.

Now they'll ignore what they've written in the past and tell you just how a tv makes no sense for Apple.

Does that mean you're smarter than those idiots if you called them idiots?

 

[Michael CM1]

It's a great idea, but you've got people like me who just dropped $1,000+ on a Samsung LED TV who wouldn't get rid of it to buy another one made by Apple. TVs aren't replaced more than maybe once a decade, so it would've been a while before Apple could've gotten mass penetration on that.

But you offer a $100 box that people can add on and everybody with a TV is a potential customer.

 

[coolfactor]

Personally I think they dropped the ball several years ago by not opening up their Apple TV platform to developers. Now they are only beginning to catch up on that front with hopes that the next version will have an App Store, etc.

A shame. Not that the "game" is over. But Apple should be much further along than they are.

One man's opinion. Look at the TV market right now. It's a mess. Does it really matter if Apple steps in deeper in 2015 vs. 2012? Nope. At the moment that they do, things will begin to change radically, and the industry will follow.

 

[Kenrik]

My prediction is New Apple TV with Thunderbolt + 4k Thunderbolt monitor at around 32 inches that can work together or you can just buy the monitor and use it with your computer.

 

[Michael Scrip]

HD took forever to start catching on though (first hit the US in '98, 25% adoption in 2008, and we are currently at like 70-80% adaption depending on who's numbers you see), and if companies didn't just stop making SD gear the transition would've even been more drawn out. Without the federally mandated move from analog to digital broadcasting (which meant everyone needed to buy new broadcasting and receiving gear anyway so why not go HD) HD wouldn't have happened until streaming, IMO, because it would have been too cost prohibitive.

With streaming though, it's just more bits flying across the Internet. I mean, in something like 5 years YouTube videos when from 240p to 1080p and it all happened in the background. Same for when Netflix went from SD to HD and now to 4k. Little to no disruption on the consumer side of things (unlike the analog to digital switch).

And ABC still broadcasts in 720p

Youtube might have flipped a switch and started offering 4K streaming... but people's internet connections haven't evolved that fast.

New compression schemes will help some... but still require more bandwidth.

I doubt people will actually notice (just like most people didn't realize they were watching SD on their HD TV) but they'll believe the marketing so they'll think they'll notice and that perception, plus our consumer-centric culture, is all that it will take to move product.

Maybe when 4K is a standard feature on every TV... adoption will increase. It's difficult to even find an SD TV anymore.

So in 10 years will every TV sold be 4K and will HD become hard to find?

Or will HD be "good enough" for the long haul? Sort of a plateau?

Like I said earlier... SD to HD was a welcome change. It needed to happen... and I'm glad it did.

But I'm not sure HD to 4K is as necessary.

The barrier for entry is actually surprisingly low. There are a number of 4k cameras out today including inexpensive GoPro's and DSLRs. 3D requires specialized products where as shooting and editing in 4k is just like HD (or even SD) just with bigger file sizes (and sometimes smaller file sizes thanks to better compression). I've got a 2009 Mac Pro and I can edit 4k on it in Premiere Pro so you don't even need a beast of a machine for it. Yeah, I have to edit at 1/2 or sometimes 1/4 res if I'm pulling enough streams, but even at 1/4 res that's still HD quality on playback.

Take a look at Craigslist ads in NY or LA and you'll see at lot of no-budget movies, music videos, TV pilots, etc., shot in 4k and looking to be finished in 4k. Need it or not, it is already on it's way to becoming the new norm.

Oh sure... 4K is happening in some capacity now. I've even shot and edited some 4K myself for fun.

There is a definite workflow change though.

I'm just trying to figure out why Dr. Phil needs to be shot, edited and delivered in 4K.

You said yourself that people probably won't notice the difference... so why even do it?

.

 

[jim.arrows]

For a remote control, it should be similar to the current AppleTV one, but with a wireless tech like Bluetooth, and very important, a microphone for Siri. Optionally, a pointing system ala Wii.

I don't care if it has all those bells & whistles as additional features, but it MUST continue to function with infrared universal remotes for at least the basic UI functionality. The Amazon FireTV Stick has a dedicated bluetooth remote and as a result I never use it. I personally hope you can pair IOS devices to take care of all of the voice & siri integration, but my biggest want/need is simple, basic IR functionality.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I recently purchased a Wii U (I'm one of those weird people), and I'm surprised how much I find myself using the screen on the gamepad instead of my HDTV, even though the gamepad has low pixel density compared to the TV (relative to the TV's distance from me). I think people just prefer using things they can hold these days. Televisions are still stuck to a wall. And anything you hold close to you takes up just as much of your field of view as a large TV.

Maybe a large, wireless, battery-powered television is that extra something special? The technology for a display that could be low-wattage enough to be battery powered is probably a ways off. And by that point, why not just make iPads a sufficient size such that putting one on your coffee table becomes your TV? People already do that, anyhow, with the sizes they are.

 

[Kenrik]

The remote that solves the problem.. the interface that Steve Jobs "cracked" has already been invented and you never need to find it since it is now on your wrist. it's called the apple watch.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Apple already has the right product concept in their Apple TV module. BUT...they really need to take this to the next level (GUI, features, power, and content deals).

Really glad that they are not making a "TV" in the old sense of it. Even the TV industry can't figure out what to do next. Fails already include "Smart" TV, 3D TV, and "odorama".

 

[now i see it]

Do people watch TV anymore?

 

[Dorje Sylas]

Wonder if/when they will do an ATV add-on camera to enable facetime in the living room. Seems a natural extension.

Unless the new form factor is setup in such a way to rest/clip/sit on top of most "modern" flat TVs, or at the base with a good angled lens. Either sitting on top or at the base would fulfill that function without running too many extra cables all over.

Come to think of it, if it was setup more like a Stick (like current ChromeCast/Fire-Stick) with a tilt-able camera to run off the "Side" HDMI port or peeking out from under the bottom edge, that would also do it.

Then again, letting your iPhone be the Facetime Camera with AirPlay mirroring and offering a *stand/clip* to slot it into place would also do. Especially with an NFC quick connection to setup the AirPlay.

 

[the8thark]

I disagree 100% with this article.

To me it seems Apple either did or did not try to make a television in their development laboratories. But there was no plan to commercially market it so far. We have had zero credible rumours to the contrary.

The main reason is televisions are not something people buy every year or even every 5 years. They keep them till they die or the TV signal changes so they are forced to buy a new one. That is not a sustainable business model for Apple. Apple need the every year or even at least every few year upgrades of hardware that people but to stay in business.