Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Television Set Rumors Revived, To Launch in 2011?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Plasma looks much better then an LCD or led. That's not even an opinion, it's a known fact unless your only source of info is best buy. Although they do use more power.
gt1948 said:
Plasma looks much better then an LCD or led. That's not even an opinion, it's a known fact unless your only source of info is best buy. Although they do use more power.
Absolutely not going to happen. Apple would never release something that was simply rebranded. The design and build would have to be Apple through and through. Samsung might make some components, but the final product would be nothing less than true Apple.
No an expansion port, on the back that the Apple TV would slide into, so there is no device you have to put somewhere and a dangling cable. It would slide in and possible be screwed into the expansion bay on the back of the TV.
I could see a Comcast-killer Apple-branded TV for sub-$1k with a content subscription. The kicker is whether Apple could get a deal worked out to include Comcast/NBCU content that would go after Comcast on its home turf, i.e., recurring cable subscriber fees, and I don't see Apple launching a cut-the-cable-cord product that does not include Comcast/NBCU's shows.
My guess: If Apple and Comcast ever get a content deal worked out, it will be for Apple to provide the UI for a Comcast subscriber-based service in Comcast's markets and Comcast provides its content to whatever deals Apple can get worked out with other carriers. Apple gets a piece of the recurring revenue from all of it, and the studios allow users to view the content on all iOS products.
Comcast has enough market power in local cable and in content to make it very difficult to go around them, so I think we would wind up with a carrier-based model like what we already have with local cable and mobile phones. The UI and content delivery would just be a lot better than it is now.
Last edited:
Woah this is cool .. I think what will be cooler is if the new apple television set in addition to having apple tv capabilities, also ran ios or a version of it designed for tvs ... so you could have apps on your tv just like the ipad and do stuff like view your email, surf safari play games using the apple tv set remote as controller and ofcourse stream your media from a computer.
wow that would really be cool
wow that would really be cool
The number of responders here making snide comments about plasma is sad. As most other responders on this post have mentioned-plasma televisions are heads and shoulders over LED/LCD.
Yes, they run warmer and use more power but the image and the richness of blacks makes up for it.
Last edited:
ATV + iTunes currently cannot compete with Netflix at all. Now if Apple brings out streaming and/or unlimited rentals for a fixed monthly price they might have something.[/QUOTE]
Apple hasn't really tried to compete with Netflix.
First, Apple has the studio relationships to put together a subscription for catalog titles and has chosen not to. I think that's at least in part because Apple's brand is not compatible with what is the streaming video equivalent of second-run movie theaters. (I'm not saying Netflix isn't a good value; I'm saying I couldn't see Apple putting out a competing product that didn't have newer or exclusive content.)
Second, Apple is trying to play nice with the networks. That's why current TV show downloads on iTunes are still expensive enough that most users are not going to view iTunes as a cable replacement; it's great for an episode you missed but not for every episode you want to see. Apple doesn't want to threaten the networks' advertising and retrans revenue as long as there is a possibility that the networks will sign on to a subscription plan down the road that would result in bigger recurring revenue for Apple.
Apple hasn't really tried to compete with Netflix.
First, Apple has the studio relationships to put together a subscription for catalog titles and has chosen not to. I think that's at least in part because Apple's brand is not compatible with what is the streaming video equivalent of second-run movie theaters. (I'm not saying Netflix isn't a good value; I'm saying I couldn't see Apple putting out a competing product that didn't have newer or exclusive content.)
Second, Apple is trying to play nice with the networks. That's why current TV show downloads on iTunes are still expensive enough that most users are not going to view iTunes as a cable replacement; it's great for an episode you missed but not for every episode you want to see. Apple doesn't want to threaten the networks' advertising and retrans revenue as long as there is a possibility that the networks will sign on to a subscription plan down the road that would result in bigger recurring revenue for Apple.
This can't be true. It sounds like a money loser Google would try.
Netflix and itunes store are not competitors. They compliment one another. You can't beat netflix price and itunes store offers the option to buy if you like and also some titles netflix doesn't have. I don't understand why people get in a debate about one over the other.
Netflix and itunes store are not competitors. They compliment one another. You can't beat netflix price and itunes store offers the option to buy if you like and also some titles netflix doesn't have. I don't understand why people get in a debate about one over the other.
I'm feeling close to the same as many people on here.
About the plasma situation, there's absolutely no chance Apple will go that route. They've always been about saving power; and plasmas are huge power hogs, no matter how nice they are on the eyes (Yes, I have a 60 inch Pioneer Plasma screen.... it is a beauty, but man does it get hot. Although, Apple's TC and AEBS don't seem to be far from the same operating temperature...
). I guarantee it will be either LCD or LED, most likely, LED.
That's only if they do go down the TV Set path.
Overall, I don't see it happening. It would get too complicated having to deal with more service providers and SAMSUNG. Please.
I think sticking to the aTV is Apple's best bet. The only reason people aren't buying it is because of the lack of functionality: no web browser, no apps (other than Netflix and whatnot), no hard drive disk space.That's what also disappointed me on the aTV2 update... no hard drive or 1080p output.
What I DO see in the near future is making the aTV a gaming device. Throw in App support and HDD space. Hook it up with an iDevice and you pretty much have the new Wii. That's what will be the key selling point of the aTV3.
About the plasma situation, there's absolutely no chance Apple will go that route. They've always been about saving power; and plasmas are huge power hogs, no matter how nice they are on the eyes (Yes, I have a 60 inch Pioneer Plasma screen.... it is a beauty, but man does it get hot. Although, Apple's TC and AEBS don't seem to be far from the same operating temperature...
). I guarantee it will be either LCD or LED, most likely, LED. That's only if they do go down the TV Set path.
Overall, I don't see it happening. It would get too complicated having to deal with more service providers and SAMSUNG. Please.
I think sticking to the aTV is Apple's best bet. The only reason people aren't buying it is because of the lack of functionality: no web browser, no apps (other than Netflix and whatnot), no hard drive disk space.That's what also disappointed me on the aTV2 update... no hard drive or 1080p output.
What I DO see in the near future is making the aTV a gaming device. Throw in App support and HDD space. Hook it up with an iDevice and you pretty much have the new Wii. That's what will be the key selling point of the aTV3.
LCDs or LED-LCDs in my opinion look a lot better than plasma TVs.
I'm guessing the people who think plasma is better are talking about just from-far movie-watching.
If you walk into a good arcade (there aren't any these days) and take a look at an LCD monitor, it looks amazingly crisp. It also just feels more comfortable.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPmeDQMSbWs
An LCD would be much better in this circumstance.
I just think LCDs/LED-LCDs look the best.
Whenever I see a plasma I don't think it looks as nice - it almost looks less consistent.
I bet you you're not using a plasma computer monitor.
The "ONE BRAND" Apple TV sounds like an uphill struggle. Now, if they approach all TV manufacturers and get their devices implanted to maybe half of the major makers... and all those TVs feed directly into the Apple movie service... perhaps they will have a success. I doubt people will buy a specific TV just because an Apple TV is INSIDE of it. I wouldn't.
Correct me if I am wrong (I don't use iTunes), but do you not have to "rent" movies from iTunes? From Netflix you do not, unless you opt for the physical discs mailed to you. I don't see this as a game changer in entirety. If Apple wants to "blow the other guys out of the water", they need a subscription unlimited service. Plain and simple. Between Hulu and Netflix I can pretty much watch anything I want at any time without pulling my credit card out or 1 click buying.
Apple should just buy Netflix or work a deal with them to integrate the service into iTunes.
Win.
Win.
Ummmmmmm...
So let me get this rumor straight... Apple's going to put their logo and brand and reputation on a piece of hardware they didn't make and aren't responsible for, only to provide software functionality to it? (Kind of like Microsoft does?)
No, they are not.
Remember that little ROKR experiment? Apple would prefer you didn't.
I can just see it now, small, on the back of the TV: "Made by Samsung, not in California"
I repeat:
So let me get this rumor straight... Apple's going to put their logo and brand and reputation on a piece of hardware they didn't make and aren't responsible for, only to provide software functionality to it? (Kind of like Microsoft does?)
No, they are not.
Remember that little ROKR experiment? Apple would prefer you didn't.
I can just see it now, small, on the back of the TV: "Made by Samsung, not in California"
I repeat:
Apple TV
Something I heard quite a while ago was when Pioneer had given up the TV business, a well known computer company had went to Pioneers' HQ and a number of patents in TV testing equipment had been signed over.
Shortly after that, on Patently Apple, patent filings for Apple had started to include TV in their findings. I had long suspected that maybe Apple themselves where that computer company.
Pioneer was once the high end kings of TV production and as such commanded top prices and we all know that Apple are very specific when it comes to testing and design.
I'm not sure if Apple would ever release an actual TV set or just incorporating that technology into their current or future monitors or iMacs, but what I do know is that when Apple want you to know what it's doing. We'll all be blown away, yet again.
Watch this space . . .
Something I heard quite a while ago was when Pioneer had given up the TV business, a well known computer company had went to Pioneers' HQ and a number of patents in TV testing equipment had been signed over.
Shortly after that, on Patently Apple, patent filings for Apple had started to include TV in their findings. I had long suspected that maybe Apple themselves where that computer company.
Pioneer was once the high end kings of TV production and as such commanded top prices and we all know that Apple are very specific when it comes to testing and design.
I'm not sure if Apple would ever release an actual TV set or just incorporating that technology into their current or future monitors or iMacs, but what I do know is that when Apple want you to know what it's doing. We'll all be blown away, yet again.
Watch this space . . .
I think it's very unlikely that there will ever be a Apple branded television. They cannot compete in that market with the Apple brand/mark-up, regardless of the offering. Content and hardware in that realm are distinctly separate entities. I could see Apple licensing a variant of IOS for set-top use by other partnered manufacturers. Kind of like iTunes on the Rokr phones there for a bit.
I would have to disagree with you there. You can not beat a Plasma TV in regards to refresh rate or contrast ratio. The new LED-LCD's come very very close, but they are typically much more expensive. LCD's are cheaper then Plasmas but don't even come close. Yes, I have all three types of TVs in my home. A 60" Plasma in the living room, a 37" LCD in the Master Bedroom, a 32" LCD in the Guest Bedroom, and a 24" LED-LCD in my son's Bedroom. The best looking TV in the house is the Plasma by far, and not just because of the size.