Are you really that ignorant? It has already been discussed at length in this thread how those instances are completely different from the ITV one.
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.
Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you really that ignorant? It has already been discussed at length in this thread how those instances are completely different from the ITV one.
That's what crossed my mind when I read the article :/
Um.. why?
I was thinking similarly. Personally I think a $999 50" TV would probably be "good enough" quality... don't you think? They could price it at $1199 or $1299. Although admittedly, Apple's MO seems to be to release its first gen products at rather high prices, then cut them down considerably.
The costs for ITV to rename and rebrand would be phenomenal and would have to include somehow renaming and rebranding their vast back catalogue. Valuation based on marcap alone would not begin to cover it. How many TVs would Apple need to sell to cover all that?
Also, as the UKs second terrestrial broadcaster, any new owner would need to be approved by parliament. Interestingly, ITV is scheduled to be relaunching some of its websites this March*, so maybe something is already afoot ;-)
*source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itv.com
People tend to get very possessive about familiar brand names.
In the UK at least, I can't help thinking that forcing ITV to rebrand would be extremely bad publicity for Apple (even if ITV themselves were willing and paid well).
If this turns out to be another TV and not a television I'll be the first person to say told you so.
Why?
Nothing here even slightly suggests that this is defiantly a television set rumour. I take it as a TV rumour that everyone thinks is about a television set.
I can see though how people are believing this is a television set rumour. But many people here have tunnel vision. They want television set rumours. And that's they fit the rumour to fir their want of an Apple television set. But to me this rumour does not say it's for a television set. It does not even say it's for TV. It's just a lot of people assuming it's a television set when in reality they have no idea at all.
I really hope it's a new TV. But I'm not blinded by this. I understand it could be TV. It also could be a television set. It could also be something else.
***************
The major problem here is the article writers here at MacRumors and most of the readers hear a rumour and they only see one side of it. The side they want to see. "We want an Apple television set so this rumour has to be about an Apple television set". It could be about TV or something else. Just one example. But there are many.
One thing we all "should" know about Apple by now is to expect the unexpected. A rumour might not be what you want it to be. But it might be too. Everyone here needs to understand this:
Rumours here are just a possibility of future Apple dealings. They most times are pretty open ended and have a large scope for possible applications. Pigeonholing them into one thing or another is turning a blind eye to other options or aspects that rumours could be.
So I say to the article writers here and to most of the readers, take off you "I want a rumour to be this or that" glasses, have an open mind and try to understand that rumours might not be exactly what you want them to be.
And this is a good thing. Because if all rumours turned out to be what the people here wanted, then we'd not have the amazing products Apple has delivered to us and will keep delivering to us.
And I think I'll post this elsewhere on the forum so more people can read this.
Why?
Nothing here even slightly suggests that this is defiantly a television set rumour. I take it as a TV rumour that everyone thinks is about a television set.
I can see though how people are believing this is a television set rumour. But many people here have tunnel vision. They want television set rumours. And that's they fit the rumour to fir their want of an Apple television set. But to me this rumour does not say it's for a television set. It does not even say it's for TV. It's just a lot of people assuming it's a television set when in reality they have no idea at all.
I really hope it's a new TV. But I'm not blinded by this. I understand it could be TV. It also could be a television set. It could also be something else.
***************
The major problem here is the article writers here at MacRumors and most of the readers hear a rumour and they only see one side of it. The side they want to see. "We want an Apple television set so this rumour has to be about an Apple television set". It could be about TV or something else. Just one example. But there are many.
One thing we all "should" know about Apple by now is to expect the unexpected. A rumour might not be what you want it to be. But it might be too. Everyone here needs to understand this:
Rumours here are just a possibility of future Apple dealings. They most times are pretty open ended and have a large scope for possible applications. Pigeonholing them into one thing or another is turning a blind eye to other options or aspects that rumours could be.
So I say to the article writers here and to most of the readers, take off you "I want a rumour to be this or that" glasses, have an open mind and try to understand that rumours might not be exactly what you want them to be.
And this is a good thing. Because if all rumours turned out to be what the people here wanted, then we'd not have the amazing products Apple has delivered to us and will keep delivering to us.
And I think I'll post this elsewhere on the forum so more people can read this.
Last edited:
bookmark
Why have I gotten six thumbs down for the bookmark idea-no one has an actual response to debate. By integrating the bookmark feature for ads they can generate millions of revenue to make the next generation TV have what you all want and much more-plus instead of totally forgetting the ad we might actually go visit the web site and look further at what they are offering. Why is that a problem?
Why have I gotten six thumbs down for the bookmark idea-no one has an actual response to debate. By integrating the bookmark feature for ads they can generate millions of revenue to make the next generation TV have what you all want and much more-plus instead of totally forgetting the ad we might actually go visit the web site and look further at what they are offering. Why is that a problem?
YMMV - some people don't need lots of inputs on the TV
Similar setup here (dual tuner TiVo, cable box (not DVR), BD, HTPC) and 6.1 Surround.
Big difference, though, is that the AV receiver is the center of the system - all inputs go to the receiver (it has 6 HDMI inputs, 3 component inputs, 4 composite inputs, 9 SPDIF inputs (6 optical, 3 coax)). It has two video upscaling convertors, and digital audio decoders. The OTA HDTV antenna connects to the TiVo.
The TV is monitor only, it has no other input and its speakers are off. It has one HDMI input that it stays on, all switching is done at the receiver - and the TV only sees a 1080p picture, all upconversions are done in the receiver.
For me, there is no value for additional inputs on the TV screen - only three wires run to it - the one HDMI, the power cord, and a Cat6 Gigabit Ethernet cable (for firmware updates and NTP).
Similar setup here (dual tuner TiVo, cable box (not DVR), BD, HTPC) and 6.1 Surround.
Big difference, though, is that the AV receiver is the center of the system - all inputs go to the receiver (it has 6 HDMI inputs, 3 component inputs, 4 composite inputs, 9 SPDIF inputs (6 optical, 3 coax)). It has two video upscaling convertors, and digital audio decoders. The OTA HDTV antenna connects to the TiVo.
The TV is monitor only, it has no other input and its speakers are off. It has one HDMI input that it stays on, all switching is done at the receiver - and the TV only sees a 1080p picture, all upconversions are done in the receiver.
For me, there is no value for additional inputs on the TV screen - only three wires run to it - the one HDMI, the power cord, and a Cat6 Gigabit Ethernet cable (for firmware updates and NTP).
Here is what I am not understanding. Apple has what $80 BILLION dollars in its cash reserve. Assuming half of that is actually in the USA. $40 BILLION to use as leverage or to pre-purchase all the Television content they want.
Why not take $10 billion of that and invest (or even buy them outright) in say 10 production companies and they can use that capital to produce amazing content for a future Apple TV device. Run all this as a totally owned subsidiary of Apple - Apple Content, Inc. Imagine if HBO could produce 10 amazing series a year instead of 4. Or NBC or CBS or Fox, etc.
$10 billion is a large investment for sure but again it locks up content for say the next 10-15 years of iTunes TV content for its Apple TV, iTV, iPod, iPhone customers.
Which will in turn purchase $100 billion of Apple hardware and software over the next 10 years.
Its just like buying $2billion of Flash RAM today to lock up supply for Apples mobile devices.
Except your just pre-buying access to killer content and providing capital as an investment vehicle so all this killer content can get green-lit.
Why not take $10 billion of that and invest (or even buy them outright) in say 10 production companies and they can use that capital to produce amazing content for a future Apple TV device. Run all this as a totally owned subsidiary of Apple - Apple Content, Inc. Imagine if HBO could produce 10 amazing series a year instead of 4. Or NBC or CBS or Fox, etc.
$10 billion is a large investment for sure but again it locks up content for say the next 10-15 years of iTunes TV content for its Apple TV, iTV, iPod, iPhone customers.
Which will in turn purchase $100 billion of Apple hardware and software over the next 10 years.
Its just like buying $2billion of Flash RAM today to lock up supply for Apples mobile devices.
Except your just pre-buying access to killer content and providing capital as an investment vehicle so all this killer content can get green-lit.
Yeah, My little town is lumped in with the Greater Chattanooga Metropolitan Area, where, weirdly enough, we have access to some of the fastest internet connections in the country. I can get 50/50 fiber for about $70 a month. 100/100 if I can convince the telco my house is secretly a business. Downloading BR quality media wouldn't be a big issue for me.
But go outside the 20 mile metro radius, and you'll see internet connections go from cheap and speedy cable/fiber, to flaky at the best of times 6Mbps PPPoE DSL connections. This is about common for every city in the country. And even then, not every city offers up the same quality of connections. The state of residential broadband in the US is pretty damn spotty.
And I don't think you have any choice to escape from those clunkity ass slow Motorola STBs. Just about every wired service uses them, I think. I'm on digital cable right now, and I'm stuck with one. It's one of the main reasons why I started watching all my shows on the internet.
There aren't enough quality producers, directors, writers, actors and other production-related talent to fund 10 super amazing shows per year. Just because Apple has the cash doesn't mean it can provide the supply.
Offer it up as a iTVContent SuperFund then. Just like they did for applications and developers - create a marketplace (iTunes TV pass) - fund it (Revenue sharing - 70% went to content creators) - and guess what a ton more content creators will enter the space. Now you will have to use this subsidiary and the current content producers to filter out the crap for awhile. But this will grow the market and attract additional creators and artists to build amazing content.
Also I am sure Apple and its new content company could offer up some pretty amazing deals on hardware/software bundles (think Mac Pros + FCP + Apple Lion Server + NAS storage + RED Cameras) again to provide current technology and tools speed up the the content creation process.
But I do see your point. This all takes years to develop.
I think it might just be faster to write checks. Buy out the rest of Disney/ABC/ESPN and NBC-Comcast and HBO. That should be enough content to throw all that behind a TV that is voice and iOS driven with ala carte Apple curated content purchasing (iTunes).
You forget that iDevices are a distinct minority of all the available delivery mechanisms for video. You can't just glom the iOS app model onto TV content. They are not the same.
iTV is only called iTV in England (and Wales I believe) In Scotland it is named STV, and it has another name in Northern Ireland.
Still though I wouldn't expect it to change name, even for Apple's money.
Still though I wouldn't expect it to change name, even for Apple's money.
What current advancements in TV and content would an Apple-branded TV be disruptive to?
That's not how it works. For the simple reason that many shareholders are not interested in selling their share.
Regardless of how much money you have or the market cap of the company. That's why nobody can "just take over" MSFT or BMW or AAPL or whatever, even though there are many players who could afford it.
What would be the return on this 10B$ investment ? Look at current iTunes content revenue/profit figures and it would be quite a while before Apple recuperates their investment, much less make money on it. Not to mention that once they've acquired this production talent, it becomes a money sink to actually produce the content itself, meaning the 10B$ initial investment generates new spending for the company.
No seriously, "throwing" money at random stuff to see what sticks is not a good way to make money and certainly not what Apple does.
Writing the apps is something any developer can do. The TV experience won't be about who has more apps. It will be about who can make the deals with the content providers (the networks). The advantage Apple has going into the living room is that they've made this work already - for music - and they did it when music labels were terrified of - and entrenched against - any digital distribution at all. Apple had the uphill battle to fight against the bad taste of Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc.
But they made the deals they needed in order to get and grow the content libraries they needed. All they'll need to do is point to their past success and that is an advantage noone else trying to move into the living room has done. Has Google done it? Hell no, the Logitech Revue was a fail because Google could never get 2 of 4 networks onboard! Has Microsoft done it? No, they just killed the Zune, an epic fail. Microsoft didn't want to have to make thise content deals, so they were big supporters of the Fairplay and Plays for Sure standards, trying to ensure that the most music from disparate sources would play on their player.
Has Sony done it? Sony is a music label and a film studio, which would preclude them making deals with other labels/studios on their TVs.
Has Samsung done it? LG? Toshiba? No, no, and no.
Who else can do it? Someone who's done it before has the BEST chance, but even that doesn't guarantee Apple will succeed.
It's impossible to overstate that element.
There a very good chanced it's a: 50" 4K-5K Apple TV aimed at those who record videos higher than 1080p, higher than DVD and Blu-Ray resolutions. It's gonna' have 3D IMAX technology and the best 3D TV technology, OLED screen and will have a service to download the 3D version, uncompressed of movies like Avatar
Gbu.
P.S. Let us make this year a God-centered and full of handwork year for more blessings.
Gbu.
P.S. Let us make this year a God-centered and full of handwork year for more blessings.
There are also other TV stations around the world already called ITV, including one in the USA (San Diego to be precise). The effort of trying to buy up the rights to use this name from all these different owners, along with the regulatory implications means that the name iTV for a potential Apple device is a complete non-starter. Hell, the 1st gen Apple TV was pre-announced as iTV, but Apple backed down when challenged by ITV (UK) and threatened with legal action. Of course, all the fanboys out there can -1 me as much as they like, but that's the history here. Apple have already conceded that iTV can't be used as a name.
Yet for all Apple's pull and iCloud, you still can't stream music from it. I almost bought the iPhone 4S because I thought I would be able to stream my entire music library from the iCloud. Then I tested it out on my iPad and found out that it's this lame implementation that downloads an entire album to local storage and then plays it. Even Microsoft has a true streaming service(Zune Pass).
Streaming has never been Apple's music delivery strategy. Now, the way they've done their cloud service is you see a placeholder of every song title you've uploaded via iTunes Match, with a button to the far right with the cloud link. You tap on it and it downloads just the song you want to hear, and after a short buffer, starts playing, and after a few more seconds, you have the song on your device. If you want to play it again, play it again, no matter where you are. The flaw to the streaming method would mean you're vulnerable to service interruptions in the middle of a song (like Pandora is currently. Have you ever been listening to Pandora and forgot, left the house and lost your signal? Raise your hands....my hand goes up, too). What if you're streaming your music on your iPhone, and go through a bad cell? You lose your stream, of course. Headaches that lessen the experience.
I think Apple's current download strategy for iTunes Match is smart.
Zune Pass? You're trotting out a service for a dead, failed device? More power to you, if that's the hill you wanna die on.
#1 - How is it smart for me to buy a 16GB iPhone 4S and have iTunes Match download every single song of my nearly 70GB music library and fill it up? I'd have to manually delete songs/albums to make space, that sounds stupid and that's why true streaming is important!
#2 - How is Windows Phone a "dead, failed" device? It's not even properly launched yet.