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

Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES

ganymedes13 said:
Have you rented or movies from Apple and Amazon? I once saw a movie that I was unable to buy or rent two weeks prior in HD because cable companies had bought the rights to that movie during that time period in HD. Only the SD version was available.

I don't really care about cable provider rentals. I haven't looked at them since the 90s when they were charging twice as much as Blockbuster. Even then cable UIs are horrific.

I even pay an extra $10/month for DVR on each of my cable boxes. Why should this be?

Try finding The Seven Samurai on Amazon or any Criterion Collection product available for streaming on Amazon. This is considered one of the greatest films of all time (top 5 by AFI) and Apple has it for streaming but Amazon does not.
Click to expand...

First off, here's The Seven Samurai available for online streaming (rent or buy) on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Samurai...s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1325709409&sr=1-1

Secondly, dude no offense, but you obviously don't stream a lot of recent video. Cable movies are comparably priced (at least Comcast), maybe slight more expensive but offer vastly superior quantity. Amazon is by far the 2nd best of any streamer selection-wise. I rent close to 50 movies a year via streaming (no lie) so I am VERY attuned to the availability of pay-per streamable movie online from all sources.

Tony
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
bbeagle said:
If Apple wants to use iTV, they probably can. Money talks in negotiations. The iPhone name was already taken even when Apple made their announcement. Apple really wanted the name badly, and was willing to pay for the name. They can do the same for the TV, but I think 'Apple TV' sounds better than 'iTV'.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. See here: http://www.itvplc.com/about/history/

I'm not really sure a company that has built up its brand will be so quick to part with their name no matter what is offered.

iPhone was different because the history of the name and the brand association wasn't even remotely what iTV is.

And personally (my own opinion) is that it's annoying whenever an obstacle comes up that people automatically assume that since Apple has 80B they can just "buy" whoever they want or get their way. It definitely gives leverage - but it's not a free pass.
 
Thunderhawks said:
You mean like the ipod, ipad and iphone?

You mean like the itunes store?

You mean like the app store?

You mean like the MacBookAir, you mean like MacBooks and Pros , iMacs all of which can run PC OS as well as OSX?

You mean like we must look at stuff from umpteen years ago to gauge what they will do next?

You mean Apple cares about fanboys?
Click to expand...


I think you missed the point of our discussion!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I think they will get this one. After using the apple tv for an extensive period it will be a lot like that but they'll add some sort of integration with peripherals. They could integrate the cable box tech into the television link it up with their interface and boom. And yes apple probably has the resources to do it for many cable providers. Work that in with exclusive content deals and the airplay functionality from idevices and I think we have a winner. They'll have to handle blue ray and video games somehow. But if it had Bluetooth they could even offer controllers or motion control for games in the AppStore. It's the xboxes and blue ray players im interested in seeing how they interface.
 
ctdonath said:
It's not just about now, it's about making the path to the future. Nobody did "retina displays" ... until Apple did, and suddenly everyone is. 1080p HDTV is nearly 20 years old now; small wonder Apple might be the one to push WQHD.

http://xkcd.com/732/
Click to expand...

That is "then" - this is now. Apple's first foray into the marketplace isn't going to be something that is made for what will be YEARS away. On a Gen 1 device. Don't see it.
 
There is a huge opening because currently speech recognition on XBox 360 is piss poor according to actual users. Siri blows XBox speech away.
 
bbeagle said:
Hahahaha.. awesome.

If Apple wants to use iTV, they probably can. Money talks in negotiations. The iPhone name was still taken even when Apple made their iPhone 1 announcement. Apple really wanted the name badly, and was willing to pay for the name. They can do the same for the TV, but I think 'Apple TV' sounds better than 'iTV'.

And 'iveTV' sounds the best. :)
Click to expand...

Is Apple wants to use corporate droit du seigneur to appropriate its goals then its claim to being a good corporate citizen looks less than believable.
 
alent1234 said:
i've run the numbers. once you factor in $50 for internet and $15 a month for Hulu and netflix itunes only makes sense for a few episodes here and there.

the $.99 per episode price is way too much. Roku with Amazon seems like a better deal apple tv as well. i only plan to buy a few cheap cartoons. anything more than that is going on blu ray. i refuse to buy $30 movies that are compressed and DRM locked to devices, services and ecosystems.
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to be comparing internet+hulu+Netflix vs TWC or Dish

Many people pay for both internet access and cable or satellite. I was paying $91/month for Dish. That's $1092 / year. Subtract $92 for Hulu and I am left with $1000 to buy seasons on iTunes. I think in a year I could buy about 50 seasons worth of shows. After a few years think of the library that could be amassed. When you pay for Cable, you are paying for reruns and you are paying for sports whether or not you watch them. You also often pay way too much money for ****** hardware. The Dish DVR I had was HUGE and put out more heat than my MacBook Pro. It's really not a good value for many people.
 
bbeagle said:
Hahahaha.. awesome.

If Apple wants to use iTV, they probably can. Money talks in negotiations. The iPhone name was still taken even when Apple made their iPhone 1 announcement. Apple really wanted the name badly, and was willing to pay for the name. They can do the same for the TV, but I think 'Apple TV' sounds better than 'iTV'.

And 'iveTV' sounds the best. :)
Click to expand...

They could probably buy the ITV name if they REALLY wanted, but ITV is so deeply rooted in the minds of the British people as being the third TV station it wouldn't be worth it. Besides, the quality of programming on ITV is so low Apple really don't want to be associated with it, they might as well call it the WalmartTV or the SHiTV.

Burton Snowboards had a similar problem when they first came to the UK due to Burtons menswear, they had to re-brand their products B13 IIRC.
 
bad idea

I think this TV idea is:confused: terrible for Apple, especially in a Post-Steve world. They can't have their next product after him be a failure and I can't think of anyway a $4000 TV would be a hit?

People just went out and bought 3D TV's or they picked up a cheap LCD because the prices are so low. Not enough people will run out and buy this.

Even if the sales are OK, media will say it's a failure because it won't have the sales numbers of iphone/ipad.

I hope the TV rumors are all wrong.
 
Hopefully with Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set. After image quality, that is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?
 
smoledman said:
There is a huge opening because currently speech recognition on XBox 360 is piss poor according to actual users. Siri blows XBox speech away.
Click to expand...

Because Siri is going to be the dividing line between getting or not getting the mythical Apple TV?

Don't think so. Apple, I hope, has something more/better up its sleeve.

Huge opening because XBOX's speech recognition isn't the best? LOL.. ok...
 
ctdonath said:
You're assuming nobody will go beyond with it.

  • Being able to view HD content at 1:1 and surround it with other useful info - no picture degradation, yet more useful.
  • Multiple channels at source resolution...or reduced resolution and still look great.
  • Upscale HD source by 1.5 and still have room for high-resolution guide info.
  • Step out of the HDTV realm, past 1920x1080 constraints to higher resolutions of varying dimensions.
  • RED cameras are of relatively moderate cost (considering their applications) yet go well beyond HD resolutions. Given the option of even better resolution content production with existing affordable equipment, producing shows at such resolution becomes viable, nigh unto unavoidable - esp. if Apple encourages/subsidizes it.
  • Bring the 4K digital theater experience home.

It's not just about now, it's about making the path to the future. Nobody did "retina displays" ... until Apple did, and suddenly everyone is. 1080p HDTV is nearly 20 years old now; small wonder Apple might be the one to push WQHD.

http://xkcd.com/732/
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we won't ever see broadcast TV in that high a resolution. It just won't be anytime soon. Like you said, 1920x HDTV has been around for 20 years, but has only reached the saturation point relatively recently. On a random don't-quote-me-for-citation guess, it'll probably be another 4-5 years before TV manufacturers start pushing for higher res displays. And until TV manufacturers start pushing it, TV stations and movie studios won't be selling content at that resolution.

Add on top of that the fact you can only take advantage of that display via disc based media. It'd take a tremendous amount of bandwidth to stream a WQHD movie over the internet. And even then, you'd have to compress it so much, that the advantage that high resolution gives you will be mooted amongst all the artifacts.

Obviously, quite a bit of what you're saying will happen. Sooner rather than later. But for the first few years, it'll be an enthusiast market. That isn't a market Apple tends to go for, and won't net them much profit by jumping the gun on the resolution race so early.

In about 4-5 years, yeah. I can see it happening. Now? Not so much.
 
I really don't think Apple is going to release a TV any time soon. But if they do, it should be plasma instead of LCD if it's going to be 42" or bigger.
 
DaffyDuck said:
Well, you seem to be comparing internet+hulu+Netflix vs TWC or Dish

Many people pay for both internet access and cable or satellite. I was paying $91/month for Dish. That's $1092 / year. Subtract $92 for Hulu and I am left with $1000 to buy seasons on iTunes. I think in a year I could buy about 50 seasons worth of shows. After a few years think of the library that could be amassed. When you pay for Cable, you are paying for reruns and you are paying for sports whether or not you watch them. You also often pay way too much money for ****** hardware. The Dish DVR I had was HUGE and put out more heat than my MacBook Pro. It's really not a good value for many people.
Click to expand...

the internet is still going to run you $50 for anything over 1mbps. so that is $600 for internet, $200 or so for netflix/hulu.

i pay $150 for internet/cable/phone/dvr from time warner. don't watch a lot of tv. netflix and hulu i can pay $15 a month together and pick something out to watch instead of having to pay for everything i watch. i don't want to buy seasons of tv shows since my wife only watches a show once.

at this point Roku seems better than apple tv

now if apple released a product with a $10 a month service of some lower tier shows kind of like amazon i would be interested. and then add a few HDMI ports so that i can connect my game consoles and other boxes i may buy to it

and allow developers to add apps like in roku to stream more content to it
 
redscull said:
Exactly what does an Apple television even do that couldn't also be done with any HDTV and some new Apple device connected to it? There just isn't any reason for this product to exist at all. They need to make the ATV3 awesome. And then they're done. Television market covered. Building the ATV3 into a screen just jacks up the price of the ATV3 for no reason and makes it less compelling because you are stuck with Apple's screen sizes.
...
Click to expand...

You know, my biggest fear with this idea is that Apple might come up with some new/weird wire connections for their TVs... something like iHDMI + and than you'll have to buy those cables all over again, with a premium... :eek:;)
 
Last edited:
Networks, much like the recording industry circa Napster days, want to continue "serving it up" how they see fit. They feel safe sticking with their old business model vs. applying some technology that will actually move their industry forward over the years.

I do think it's at the breaking point though. So many people download or DVR their desired content and skip the commercials - they HAVE to be thinking of a better way to get paid.

Hopefully, Apple can reinvent the wheel - much like they did with iTunes and the music industry.
 
HelveticaRoman said:
Is Apple wants to use corporate droit du seigneur to appropriate its goals then its claim to being a good corporate citizen looks less than believable.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about????

If Apple wants to name their next iPhone the 'iPhone CocaCola'... they legally can't. Coca Cola can sue them off the face of the earth. They can negotiate with Coca Cola and see what happens, but it's up to Coca Cola whether they accept the money. There's nothing wrong with Apple's stance.

If Apple wanted me to change my name to iPhone 4S, I would say 'definately not!', but if they gave me $1 billion I would say 'definately yes'. But it's still UP TO ME. Apple is no bad guy here.

And if they wanted me to change my name to Dorky McDorkster I would have to weigh the pros and cons the same way iTV would. Could I get a date named Dorky McDorkster? Could I get a date with a billion dollars named Dorky McDorkster?

Sadly, if the CEO of iTV along with the voting board members each got $100 million personally from the deal to let Apple take the name, I bet they would. And the 'company formerly known as iTV' would continue on with a new CEO and new board members.
 
Last edited:
so what is the current business model for TV?

NBC pays producers and directors and actors to create a show (check "30 rock" is created)

Next NBC has a contract with a cable provider (Time Warner, Comcast) to host NBC and "30 rock" at 8pm on some specific day of the week.

Consumer pays Time Warner and Comcast.

that money goes where exactly? A portion to Time Warner, a portion to NBC?
Does Time Warner keep all the money and NBC already got paid by Time Warner picking up NBC as a channel on the front end?

Also why is there like a gold, silver etc. package where certain channel are missing, certain ones are there etc. What the hell kind of FU to the customers is this? Why can't I customize a Channel lineup. Say i pick only 20 channel I care about. Why does channel 4 need to be NBC?

So if NBC has a contract with Time Warner is that excusive for say the New York area? Can apple also have a contract with NBC for TV shows?


I know for example for NFL games you need direct TV for our of region games and they also black out games etc. Such a damn joke. TV must be the biggest FU to the consumer now that I think about it. Such a broken customer experience.

Also the "free" hardware you need to rent from them is a joke. It's big and ugly and boxy and so unelegant next to the rest of my TV boxes. The remote is awful, the DVR is hard to use, the space on it is small, the channel are laggy.

Now that I think about it I hope apple fixes all of this. Wow could be great.
 
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