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.
Multiple Sources Suggest Apple Working on Television for as Early as 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
New perspective on this, here ....
Over the weekend, I had a chance to drop by one of the TigerDirect outlet stores in the Chicago area to look around. It turned out this particular store sold more TVs than anything else. Combing through some of the refurbished closeouts, I found a few 32" Sony LCD TVs going for only about $220 each.
I was looking for one to replace a little 23" LCD I've had wall mounted in our bedroom for the last year or so. Given the low price and the fact it was a good brand, I took a chance on it. When I got home and started examining it more closely, I realized it was one of the "Google TV" sets with their Chrome web browser built in and built-in YouTube and Netflix support.
I already owned an AppleTV that was attached to the 23" set, so I wasn't even interested in the Google TV functionality, initially. But after playing around with it a little while, I realize how beneficial it is having all of this stuff integrated into the TV itself. For example, you can press a button on the remote and split the screen in half, so your TV show continues to play on one side while the menu pops up and lets you use the Internet on the other half of the screen. If you're watching something on TV and want to look it up on the web, you can press a single magnifying glass button on the remote and the browser auto-fills with the appropriate info taken from the TV guide info for what you're currently viewing.
Just like the AppleTV box, the Google TV did automatic updates to its software too -- so it's not a case of having to swap out the whole TV if they release new features for it. (Well, not unless they purposely hold new features back from people unless you buy a new set to get them.)
At this point, the only reason I still need the AppleTV is for streaming content stored in a copy of iTunes on one of the Macs in the house.
I can now see why "integrating an AppleTV into a TV" would be a smart move. Like the iMac, it provides a clean setup without extra cables and clutter. I do think, however, Apple would need a fancier remote than the standard Apple remote they use now. The Google TV remote has a whole keyboard built into it, and something along those lines is necessary if you expect people to run a full browser on their TV.
Over the weekend, I had a chance to drop by one of the TigerDirect outlet stores in the Chicago area to look around. It turned out this particular store sold more TVs than anything else. Combing through some of the refurbished closeouts, I found a few 32" Sony LCD TVs going for only about $220 each.
I was looking for one to replace a little 23" LCD I've had wall mounted in our bedroom for the last year or so. Given the low price and the fact it was a good brand, I took a chance on it. When I got home and started examining it more closely, I realized it was one of the "Google TV" sets with their Chrome web browser built in and built-in YouTube and Netflix support.
I already owned an AppleTV that was attached to the 23" set, so I wasn't even interested in the Google TV functionality, initially. But after playing around with it a little while, I realize how beneficial it is having all of this stuff integrated into the TV itself. For example, you can press a button on the remote and split the screen in half, so your TV show continues to play on one side while the menu pops up and lets you use the Internet on the other half of the screen. If you're watching something on TV and want to look it up on the web, you can press a single magnifying glass button on the remote and the browser auto-fills with the appropriate info taken from the TV guide info for what you're currently viewing.
Just like the AppleTV box, the Google TV did automatic updates to its software too -- so it's not a case of having to swap out the whole TV if they release new features for it. (Well, not unless they purposely hold new features back from people unless you buy a new set to get them.)
At this point, the only reason I still need the AppleTV is for streaming content stored in a copy of iTunes on one of the Macs in the house.
I can now see why "integrating an AppleTV into a TV" would be a smart move. Like the iMac, it provides a clean setup without extra cables and clutter. I do think, however, Apple would need a fancier remote than the standard Apple remote they use now. The Google TV remote has a whole keyboard built into it, and something along those lines is necessary if you expect people to run a full browser on their TV.
Oh No no , not a TV.
It will be like appletv USA and itune USA, they have movies, tv series, books, and that rental video, all good for USA, but for the rest of the world , we have zip, nothing, null.
Not another of apple product for USA again. ROTW say NO.
It will be like appletv USA and itune USA, they have movies, tv series, books, and that rental video, all good for USA, but for the rest of the world , we have zip, nothing, null.
Not another of apple product for USA again. ROTW say NO.
Not yet.
Fact is, that is what you need for a full-res HD 3D movie, or, a full-res non-3D 4K movie, both of which are coming out now from Hollywood. Not that Hollywood is currently interested in releasing full-res movies to consumers - they are deathly afraid (for good reason) of losing control of content to the Torrent world. Suppose Apple had an exclusive deal to stream these movies? This is Mac Rumors -- random speculation is OK.
But, that isn't the only use for such a TV/monitor - it could also be used for 4K video production. The reason this doesn't yet exist in the prosumer realm is because of extremely high prices. The first company to figure out how to produce 4K monitors/TVs at a reasonable price is going to make a lot of money.
All I said was, if Apple came out with such a monitor/TV at a reasonable price, I would buy one. Obviously, it wouldn't appeal to people who are still using their old SDTVs and don't see what the big deal is about Blue Ray over DVD.
Not yet.
Fact is, that is what you need for a full-res HD 3D movie, or, a full-res non-3D 4K movie, both of which are coming out now from Hollywood. Not that Hollywood is currently interested in releasing full-res movies to consumers - they are deathly afraid (for good reason) of losing control of content to the Torrent world. Suppose Apple had an exclusive deal to stream these movies? This is Mac Rumors -- random speculation is OK.
But, that isn't the only use for such a TV/monitor - it could also be used for 4K video production. The reason this doesn't yet exist in the prosumer realm is because of extremely high prices. The first company to figure out how to produce 4K monitors/TVs at a reasonable price is going to make a lot of money.
All I said was, if Apple came out with such a monitor/TV at a reasonable price, I would buy one. Obviously, it wouldn't appeal to people who are still using their old SDTVs and don't see what the big deal is about Blue Ray over DVD.
1) streaming is hardly safe form of distribution. your stream-service would soon become their rip-service.
2) 4k is useless even for the prosumer. Lots of hazzle for little (if any) gain.
3) You dont need 4k to create 4k.
And yes, the first company to produce cheap 4k panels will make a nice profit. Not by selling 4k screens though, but by using the same tech to produce dirt-cheap 1080 ones (as far as TV goes).
Anyone think about a TV that has the Apple TV guts that are a module that can be upgraded for $99...
Pop it out... Pop new one in.
Guys think OUTSIDE the box.
I should be working for Apple. Actually I should get to work in Cinema 4d and make an example. Heck I should patent it.
Pop it out... Pop new one in.
Guys think OUTSIDE the box.
I should be working for Apple. Actually I should get to work in Cinema 4d and make an example. Heck I should patent it.
An "upgradeable Apple" is too far out of the box to even consider.
Apple wants you to buy a new Apple when the battery that can't be replaced by the user wears out (not "fails", since the battery has a certain number of charge cycles, and will gradually die as that number is hit).
Apple drops support for older hardware rather quickly, so that you need to buy new hardware if you want to stay current. How's your Iphone 3G, or your Core Duo MacBook Pro, or your very expensive PowerMac G5?
It's television Jim, but not as we know it.
I suspect Apple is planning to become a disruptive force in television broadcasting, removing the power of the television networks who act as distributors of programming and giving programme makers direct access to their audience. It could work like this...
Apple provides a video streaming service delivering content in a closed ecosystem via broadband ONLY to an Apple broadband television - or Apple digital box able to be connected to any TV or Monitor.
The content could be totally free to the user (being funded by in-content advertising or sponsorship) or paid for by the user, funding choice resting with the programme maker.
Should the programme maker choose to charge, economies of scale would mean that the user need pay very little to view. For example, a dollar charge for an hour's programming would deliver close on a million dollars (after Apple's cut) per million viewers worldwide. Such low cost pricing would largely remove piracy/copying problems. Why bother when it only costs a dollar to view?
This model could totally change the way we watch TV - for the better. No longer would TV networks determine what we watch and when we watch it. Broadcast subscription services would become uncompetitive. Programme makers would have a huge incentive to deliver high quality content, and directly profit from their efforts.
Apple is probably the only company in the world with the determination, skills and resources to effect such a fundamental change.
I suspect Apple is planning to become a disruptive force in television broadcasting, removing the power of the television networks who act as distributors of programming and giving programme makers direct access to their audience. It could work like this...
Apple provides a video streaming service delivering content in a closed ecosystem via broadband ONLY to an Apple broadband television - or Apple digital box able to be connected to any TV or Monitor.
The content could be totally free to the user (being funded by in-content advertising or sponsorship) or paid for by the user, funding choice resting with the programme maker.
Should the programme maker choose to charge, economies of scale would mean that the user need pay very little to view. For example, a dollar charge for an hour's programming would deliver close on a million dollars (after Apple's cut) per million viewers worldwide. Such low cost pricing would largely remove piracy/copying problems. Why bother when it only costs a dollar to view?
This model could totally change the way we watch TV - for the better. No longer would TV networks determine what we watch and when we watch it. Broadcast subscription services would become uncompetitive. Programme makers would have a huge incentive to deliver high quality content, and directly profit from their efforts.
Apple is probably the only company in the world with the determination, skills and resources to effect such a fundamental change.
The TV industry doesn't (and can't) operate that way. Currently, the profits from popular shows subsidize the costs of making less popular shows (as well as new pilots). The networks have the option of selling cable TV channels "a la carte", but they are adamant that they WILL NOT allow viewers to cherry-pick only the best channels. You want USA and TBS? You've gotta also get CMT and BET and everything else in the bundle.
Secondly, your suggestion of $1 for an hour of programming would be significantly more expensive than what most cable subscribers pay today. According to Nielsen Co., the average US household watches 6.78 hours of TV per day. At your proposed rate, that would be $203.40 per month.
Third, as far as a closed, Apple-branded distribution service, that already exists - it's called iTunes. And it doesn't have first-run programming because the networks have no incentive to give up the lucrative profits they enjoy from their current distribution methods. Netflix is going to spend $2 BILLION on licensing rights in 2012 (per year) for the rights to some year-old (and older) TV shows and movies. You think Apple would be interested in spending many times that much for first-run rights? No way.
Finally, as for your comment about networks no longer determining what we watch and when - I agree. But that reality is already here. With Apple TV, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, and the various streaming services offered by the networks themselves, we pretty much watch "on demand" now. I cut the cord from cable TV six months ago, as many others are doing.
I still don't think you get it.
If it's a module the screen retains its place as just another commodity.. Kind of like cars with ipod connections.
I know, that is what you can do already with Apple TV/HDMI but it's more about marketing rather than actual functionality, honestly 90% of people don't even know about Apple TV or know why they need it.
If every TV set from (insert manufacturer) comes (Apple Ready) it would help drive adoption rates.
Who would not spend the extra $99 when you're buying a $500+ TV to UPGRADE it to be an Apple TV. Just giving it a Apple TV Slot will make people have the urge to fill it.
And why would everyone make their products Apple Ready? For the fun of incurring unnecessary costs?
see scooby's post...
Apple would have to order an insane number of panels to make it worthwhile.
Which is why we don't have a la cart cable now.
Plus IPTV is being sidetracked by SDV.
Interesting (even from the viewpoint of this side of the Baltic Sea),
can you give links to those?
And another display next to it, connected to bd-player and htpc?
Apple's decision for not supporting options will lead to more clutter, not less.
You can't add optional accessories to Apple's products, so you'll have to buy a whole another set for accessories...
Here's the inevitable near future from competitioners:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/new...Your-Eyes-Approaches-4K-Resolution_13406.html
What we know is that Apple crippled displayport by making it "half-thunderbolt", so the present generation of macs can barelyfeed those screens (3840 px x 2160 px x 60 fps x 2 [3D] x 8 bit [colors] = 8 Gbit/s.
So, no dual displays, we wouldn't have deep colors, 10 bit would be maximum and Airs are out for all options.
So maybe Apple thinks that harware technology is good enough for the rest of us for the rest of time and there will never be need for bigger resolution, deeper colors, faster usb and more advanced optical formats, etc.?
Or they want to sell us TB v0.8 (mbp) & TB v0.4 (air) this year, so they can sell a new one every year with incremental upgrade to TB...
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/new...Your-Eyes-Approaches-4K-Resolution_13406.html
What we know is that Apple crippled displayport by making it "half-thunderbolt", so the present generation of macs can barelyfeed those screens (3840 px x 2160 px x 60 fps x 2 [3D] x 8 bit [colors] = 8 Gbit/s.
So, no dual displays, we wouldn't have deep colors, 10 bit would be maximum and Airs are out for all options.
So maybe Apple thinks that harware technology is good enough for the rest of us for the rest of time and there will never be need for bigger resolution, deeper colors, faster usb and more advanced optical formats, etc.?
Or they want to sell us TB v0.8 (mbp) & TB v0.4 (air) this year, so they can sell a new one every year with incremental upgrade to TB...
Big difference between a cheap 23" TV you sit on a table vs. an expensive 50+" TV that is installed on the wall, and integrated into an A/V system with a universal remote or panel. The latter (which is presumably where the money is) is not going to be something people want to replace every couple of years - even if they could afford it, it's a nuisance to take one of these things off the wall and replace it, particularly if it's properly installed (so that wires are hidden, etc.).
Can't wait for this!
Apple TV with iOS. Wow!
I'll get up from my Lazy-Boy, walk over to the screen, and with my greasy, potato chip fingers touch, tap, and drag icons and actors all over the screen!
Hope it comes with a cleaning cloth!
---------
Seriously, folks, this will sell like hotcakes. It will disrupt the TV commodity and cable markets. I just hope that it has a mode whereby, with a Blue Tooth or other wireless keyboard and trackpad, I can actually project the Net, my latest Word or Excel document, and do some work.
With it wirelessly connected to other TVs and displays in the house, the home laptop becomes nothing more than a keyboard that weights a few ounces!
Apple TV with iOS. Wow!
I'll get up from my Lazy-Boy, walk over to the screen, and with my greasy, potato chip fingers touch, tap, and drag icons and actors all over the screen!
Hope it comes with a cleaning cloth!
---------
Seriously, folks, this will sell like hotcakes. It will disrupt the TV commodity and cable markets. I just hope that it has a mode whereby, with a Blue Tooth or other wireless keyboard and trackpad, I can actually project the Net, my latest Word or Excel document, and do some work.
With it wirelessly connected to other TVs and displays in the house, the home laptop becomes nothing more than a keyboard that weights a few ounces!