Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

A6-Based Apple Television to Come in Three Sizes Ranging from 32 to 55 Inches?

ncaissie said:
I have an LG 55 Smart 3D TV and it is awesome. I use Netflix all the time. I admit I don’t use the other apps but that is because most cost and are subscription based. For example 3Dee is 3D videos and from the samples they suck and aren’t worth it.
Click to expand...

I bought a 55 LG non-smart LED-LCD TV and although I don't have 3D I just didn't think I would ever use it enough to need it. I have a wifi "smart" LG Blu-ray player that does exactly what your TV does, however in 2 or 3 years when technology changes I can get rid of the player and just plug a new one in. With built in technology you are stuck with it.

I am not saying that your TV isn't nice because I know it is nicer then mine, however with everything built-in when technology changes you are stuck with it.
 
I'd live to see how this whole thing pans out. It gets more and more interesting.
 
Ryth said:
You know...the same thing was said about the phone...Phones DO NOT need to do ANYTHING but make and receive calls.

We saw how that has turned out.

You are thinking in the past and only by what you know currently. You have no clue what Jobs or Ives and the software team has come up with. If it's like the phone in the way it changed the game, then it could very well be that TVs will never be the same again.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't invent smart phones you know. Steve didn't come up with the idea that phones could do more than make calls.
 
I just don't understand what Apple can do in a full TV that they can't do in a box like the current Apple TV, that hooks up to any TV.

The Apple TV is cheap and it still barely sells, but the potential is there if Apple could get as much content as cable providers.

A full sized TV is expensive, and what more will it have than the current Apple TV? A camera in it? A nice bezel? I just don't understand.
 
The TV itself is meaningless. Yes, they can improve on the UI but only to a point. The big value will be in the content and delivery.

If they can get rid of my cable/sat bill (over $100 a month) for an a la carte model for $50 a month, I would easily spend 50% more than a regular TV.

If I have to spend $1500 vs. $1000 for the same size TV, I make back my money in ten months and am positive after that.

I went through the same thing when I first got my iPod 10 years ago. My music purchases went from $50 a month (5 CDs) down to $20 (20 songs) and paid for the iPod in no time.

If there is no revolutionary content delivery system, I wouldn't buy a new TV just for a new UI. I've got a universal Harmony remote and am otherwise happy with my TV and set top box.

----------
PlayRadioPlay said:
I just don't understand what Apple can do in a full TV that they can't do in a box like the current Apple TV, that hooks up to any TV.

The Apple TV is cheap and it still barely sells, but the potential is there if Apple could get as much content as cable providers.

A full sized TV is expensive, and what more will it have than the current Apple TV? A camera in it? A nice bezel? I just don't understand.
Click to expand...

I think the thought process is that it would have the Apple TV function built in but also wouldn't have any other inputs/outputs for cable/DVD/etc to ensure that it is locked down to the Apple ecosystem.

Maybe that's what it would take to convince the content providers to license their stuff to Apple?
 
blackhand1001 said:
Apple didn't invent smart phones you know. Steve didn't come up with the idea that phones could do more than make calls.
Click to expand...
Nope, I did. It was 1986 and I was watching my aunt carry around her suitcase-cellphone and Osborne. Had this idea to combine both those into one, easy-to-transport device. Now she has the SGSII on T-Mobile.

You're Welcome, everyone.
 
Maury said:
Indeed. None of it makes any sense. Consider:

There's much ado about people not wanting to connect another set top box. So then it would seem the correct number of boxes is either zero or many. After all, I don't think the new ATV will replace my PS3, right? So what's the difference between PS3 and ATV, and PS3 alone? Nothing really, I still have to plug in cables and deal with inputs.

And maybe this isn't the case in the US, but I suspect the situation is the same as here in Cannuckia: the cable companies simply aren't going to let you eliminate their crappy cable boxes. They'll talk about it, but it will be one of those cases where you simply can't do it - like CableCard. Apple might go all-internet, but who really expects that to happen in the short term?

But consider that further… reverse the argument. I think my TV is just a large monitor I connect things to it like my computer monitor. Those things change over time. If I try to build those into my TV, am I supposed to throw it out when a new game machine comes along? No. The proper solution is to have *nothing* in the TV, just the monitor, speakers, and a bunch of HDMI. Does anyone disagree? If so, do you think Apple would get that utterly wrong?

And then there's Siri inputs. Give me a break. Siri can't tell the difference between me and the radio, and doesn't work well at all if its noisy (just try it in the Apple store). So Piper thinks we can voice command our TVs? Really? With my wife in the kitchen asking me what I want to eat, and the kids playing YouTube on the laptop? There's no way this is going to work.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe another ATV is coming out. My difference of opinion is that it will be just like the current ATV, a little black box. Except it will have 1080p and some way to stream live TV. That's all anyone needs on top of what we already have. If you want Siri, that's easily possible in the iPhone Remote app. I'd personally love to see an antenna input and links between that an an online TV guide (even in a separate box), but I can live without that.
Click to expand...
One of the most sensible posts here. Disagree about Siri's potential to control a TV, tho' - One solution is that you'd do so through your iPhone or iPad microphone linked wirelessly to the TV over your home network, making environmental noise less of an issue (but during a noisy home theatre movie? who knows?).

I also don't think the cablecos are easily going to give up their horrible boxes and their horrible UI's and extra complex remotes - tho' I've never been exactly sure why - maybe the DVR capability? But that came along way late in this debate and a majority don't have them. Could the box itself be Apple's target - sell the cable guys their boxes as THE main box on yer TV - and make it an extra cost option with cable service??

I know the snarl of boxes intimidates the non-techies Apple's always aimed to make life easier for - but I don't think people are ready to give up X-boxes, Play Stations, Wii's, etc. - and as noted the Cable people looove their box as the #1 box of the boxes - and Apple's not going to be able to displace all those functions and companies, so still no "simple" living room solution.

My thot for awhile has been to work out an agreement with a number of screen makers for a plug-in spot for a module with all the functions of an Apple TV that would just click into the set (and be upgradeable). Small, easy to inventory, solves many of the objections on this thread, etc., and doesn't involve the cablecos, or trying to get shelf and warehouse space for all those huge screens (especially at smaller Apple Stores) and lets other people keep HDMI'ing their boxes to the TV's, while Apple's INSIDE of it already.....
 
Ryth said:
You know...the same thing was said about the phone...Phones DO NOT need to do ANYTHING but make and receive calls.

We saw how that has turned out.

You are thinking in the past and only by what you know currently. You have no clue what Jobs or Ives and the software team has come up with. If it's like the phone in the way it changed the game, then it could very well be that TVs will never be the same again.
Click to expand...

Problem with your logic is the iPhone is subsidized (i.e. you can pick one up for as little as $0.99) and the smartphone market (and tablet market for that matter) was infantile (i.e. by looking at the numbers, nobody owned a smartphone). As for LCDs or plasmas, do you personally know anyone that doesn't own one?

The above average, near top-of-the-line TV costs around $1,800. By Apple pricing models, it may cost over $2,000. But, for the sake of fantasy, let's say it will cost $1,500. It is still not a device you can justify buying every 2-3 years. On average, most people own their TV for about 8 years. Apple's other high cost items are computers and people buy them because they "need" them for "school" or "work". Apple's most expensive computer, the Mac Pro, never really caught on due to its price and likely will be discontinued within the next 5 years (no, I have no proof, but it's hard to argue against this).

I really hope these are just stupid rumors. If Apple goes ahead with this, this will be the beginning of the end for them because it will be a huge financial misstep for them. They can swing and miss on MobileMe, iAds, and Ping, but they can't swing and miss on a huge investment like this.
 
PlayRadioPlay said:
I just don't understand what Apple can do in a full TV that they can't do in a box like the current Apple TV, that hooks up to any TV.

The Apple TV is cheap and it still barely sells, but the potential is there if Apple could get as much content as cable providers.

A full sized TV is expensive, and what more will it have than the current Apple TV? A camera in it? A nice bezel? I just don't understand.
Click to expand...

With this patent from Apple it would be way more than just a regular camera. This would change the way you interact with the interface. Think gestures instead of a remote and in a unique way that is more accurate than Kinect and could enable everything Kinect can do and more.

You dont need a CCD for every pixel either to produce a stereographic image at the required resolution. You can also use different sensors, i.e. infrared to improve accuracy under different lighting conditions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9059

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060007222%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060007222&RS=DN/20060007222
 
freddiecable said:
I see no reason why Apple would not do this:

1. How many Appleheads would not jump on this train? And all those newly converted Applewannabees? They stand in the millions...
Click to expand...

You are making a wrong assumption. You assume that people buy Apple products because they are "Appleheads" and buy anything with an Apple logo on it. But that is not the case. People buy Apple products if and when they like that particular product and it gives them good value for money. When Apple makes a new product worth buying, like the iPad, people buy it.

But with a TV, a huge part of the cost is in the parts that Apple cannot improve in a meaningful way, so it would be very, very hard to take customers away from other manufacturers in a tough market. And nobody will buy an expensive TV because of an Apple logo.
 
It would make sense to have a replaceable module in the back of the TV that could be slotted into place when a new model comes around.

There are already some super thin TV's with tiny bezels.
One does wonder how Apple can make itself any better as unless it goes right for the very top end price range there will always be models from Samsung, Panasonic etc that will outperform it.

If they go LCD then they will have to go local dimming at least.
Philips and Samsung have had cracking sets with that.
 
It would be great if the Apple TV had at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside, for true Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), as well as matte display to avoid light reflections. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?
 
AppleScruff1 said:
Do you think the Apple tv's will sell like the iPhone and iPad? Millions of them per week? Do you think people will be camping out to buy them? Will they be in short supply for months to keep the demand high? Will they launch all around the world in the first few months?
Click to expand...

Wow, goalposts a bit hight much? That level of success isn't required for it to be successful. So if it doesn't sell 'millions' per week it's a failure and shouldn't exist? Give me a ****ing break. Not everything can have and needs to have iPad/iPhone levels of sales. I think the potential market for an Apple TV is worth making it.
 
Dmunjal said:
I think the thought process is that it would have the Apple TV function built in but also wouldn't have any other inputs/outputs for cable/DVD/etc to ensure that it is locked down to the Apple ecosystem.

Maybe that's what it would take to convince the content providers to license their stuff to Apple?
Click to expand...

If I couldn't plug in any of my other devices into it there is no way I would ever consider buying it. Who would? People have all sorts of things plugged into their TV. If you don't care about a gaming system (other then what Apple may provide), a BD player, or watching a sports event or local news on cable or even over the air you might enjoy this type of TV, however I think something that locked down would fail miserably in the TV market.
 
DakotaGuy said:
If I couldn't plug in any of my other devices into it there is no way I would ever consider buying it. Who would? People have all sorts of things plugged into their TV. If you don't care about a gaming system (other then what Apple may provide), a BD player, or watching a sports event or local news on cable or even over the air you might enjoy this type of TV, however I think something that locked down would fail miserably in the TV market.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but this is what Steve might have been thinking. Put your SJ hat on first.

You don't need a gaming system if it can play iOS games (Angry Birds on 55"?). You don't need a BD player if you can stream HD movies as soon as they're available on BD. For those you want to buy and not rent, they could let you buy a movie/show and store it on iCloud for you. Not sure how they would do local/OTA but they could certainly offer most if not all network and cable programming through the Internet.

Like I said, the economics have to work. People HATE paying the monthly $100+ bill to cable/sat for "500 channels and nothing on." Most people probably watch 5-10 channels a week. Charge $5 a channel and you're done. Plus access to all your iCloud content.

Imagine opening the box and it has the TV and two cables in it. One for Ethernet and one for Power. Nothing else. No remote, no HDMI cable, no component cable, no manual. You plug it in, configure, and control it with your iPhone/iPad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back