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

Analyst Claims 60-Inch 'iTV' Could Launch in Late 2013 With 'iRing' Motion Control and iPad-Like Auxiliary Screens

Popycock

This report is clearly completely rediculous. Lets think for a second, what would the hardware requirements be for "Mini TV" companion device.

1) It would require a screen (9.7" reported)
2) It would require WiFi to wirelessly transmit video from the "iTV" to the "Mini TV"
3) It would require a proceesor.
4) It would require a battery (who would want to be teathered to an outlet).
5) It would require a speaker (no point in watching a TV show if you can't hear it).
6) It would require a headphone jack.

That sounds exactly like an iPad to me. What are they going to do save money by writing a whole new OS for it, and removing the lightning connector. Someone clearly doesn't think straight.
 
Fast-forward a few months and we'll see analysts saying that supply issues and design problems have delayed the iRing. Then the stock will drop, all based on the nothing.
 
chrisbru said:
Let's not lump us all in with that person. I live in the Midwest U.S., and I've never seen a home with a TV larger than 60". He must be Big-City U.S. Coastal.
Click to expand...

In contrast, most homes in the UK max out at 42" TV's, we dont have space for a whole cinema in our houses. Sure, a few go up to 50" (however only because cheapo unbranded sets like 'Bush', 'Alba', 'Sanyo' and 'Teknica' owned by supermarkets are selling really poor quality ones for under £400) but generally 42" seems to be the sweet spot for us.
 
Ring controller doest sound correct

The motion controller using ring is not intuitive when there are more one viewers, I believe TV might have some other type of controller if launched in the first place.
 
iKen1 said:
Actually apple already asked ITV about using the phrase before they brought out Apple TV. ITV said no so that's why it's called Apple TV. Given ITV is a TV channel it would be even more confusing to use the name. There is no way on earth it's going to be called ITV, history proves that.
Click to expand...

Well that's quite a pleasant historical account on this! In actuality, Apple *did* launch the first Apple TV as "iTV", only to change it following ITV's complaint.
 
will it have hdmi? :p or some special apple plug thats supposed to make everything easier :cool: ... for them to make money off of you by selling their itunes content cuz itll be impossible to plug in a bd player for example ^^

what "provider" would subsidize a tv set? they couldnt care less

i may be old fashioned being 24 years old but i dont see whats so bad about a remote?
i have "voice" on my xbox but i never use it. i dont watch tv so i have to talk or think of what i want to say next. i rather push a silly up or down button which takes less than a few seconds but thats just me
 
Last edited:
Weegee1 said:
They could buy iTV, gaining both the name and a media source. But why would Apple call anything the "iTV" when the name sounds really bad and causes confusion with the Apple TV?
Click to expand...

I doubt they could actually.

For one thing, ITV's audience is middle age and elderly women, and the unemployed. None of these people meet Apples demographic.

For another thing, ITV is a free TV channel, with ad breaks every 15 minutes. Apple wouldnt be able to make it a paid service due to the way broadcasting works in the UK.

Then you've got the owners of ITV. ITV is part owned by BSkyB, who are in part owned by News Corp. News Corp would never sell their shares in ITV as they were purchased to prevent a merger with the UK's largest/sole cable operator Virgin Media (at the time NTL). Richard Branson also has personal shares in ITV, along with Virgin Media.

Finally you have the fact that its listed on the London Stock Exchange, any buy out would need to be in significant favor of all shareholders, who obviously can block any attempted buy out.

Seriously, it wont happen. Apple have zero right's on the 'itv' name and never will have. If they had a shot, the Apple TV would have been called iTV from the get go. They changed the name prior to launch due to it being a massive conflict.

It'd be like GSK (a UK company) trying to release a new drink called CocaCola. Its a complete conflict. You cant release a product that is another companies name, especially when said product is in the same market area.

----------
aperry said:
Well that's quite a pleasant historical account on this! In actuality, Apple *did* launch the first Apple TV as "iTV", only to change it following ITV's complaint.
Click to expand...

It wasnt released as iTV, it was previewed as it. When it officially launched it was Apple TV.
 
iRecord

This is what I see Apple doing. Allowing the AppleTV to connect to your cable/dish set top box (or an antenna source). With the AppleTV the UI for EVERY provider would be the same (tv guide, on demand, etc.) and it would allow for Apple to offer some cool features by leveraging what is already available on iTunes.

iRecord would allow you to record the TV shows and movies you want from your provider and access it from anywhere with an iOS device or your Mac. It would allow you to 'record' unlimited content too! What it would ACTUALLY do is leverage is the content on iTunes to basically let you stream the content you 'recorded' - whether it be TV shows or movies.

Apple could also work as a better alternative to "OnDemand" by allowing users to access TV shows and movies from different networks on all devices - again leveraging the content already available on iTunes. :)
 

Attachments

  • iRecord.jpg
    iRecord.jpg
    397.8 KB · Views: 118
rmwebs said:
It wasnt released as iTV, it was previewed as it. When it officially launched it was Apple TV.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want. I doubt Apple "asked" for anything before putting this out here for the world to see.
itv_sneak_peek.jpg
 
Why do people keep calling it the iTV? Because to me that just means people keep referring to several TV channels I get, why can't it just be referred to as Apple's television? At least here in the UK and most likely Europe it'll NEVER be called the iTV. Then again that's if it even exists.

Anyway, if Apple made anything called the iRing I would fall over laughing for a week! So no, I also call total BS on this one.

But the whole idea of an Apple Television I can only see ever working in American market. But the other thing is the price, this is Apple and that means expensive, which means Apple will be directly competing with the high end makers and I cant see it being competitive beyond Apple fans in that respect on the cost of a television. It'll offer some nice features no doubt but it'll hardly revolutionise the television.
 
Last edited:
This is the dumbest rumor yet. In fact, sounds like a false leak. This ring will get lost faster than you can put it on. Plus, no self-respecting person is going to wear a ring with an Apple logo on it.
 
Aldaris said:
Lets all jump off the motion controller bandwagon. It don't think that's what we need at all.
Click to expand...

Would not you like a little excersize with all this arm waving instead of just moving your fingers (with regular remote control)?
 
monaarts said:
This is what I see Apple doing. Allowing the AppleTV to connect to your cable/dish set top box (or an antenna source). With the AppleTV the UI for EVERY provider would be the same (tv guide, on demand, etc.) and it would allow for Apple to offer some cool features by leveraging what is already available on iTunes.

iRecord would allow you to record the TV shows and movies you want from your provider and access it from anywhere with an iOS device or your Mac. It would allow you to 'record' unlimited content too! What it would ACTUALLY do is leverage is the content on iTunes to basically let you stream the content you 'recorded' - whether it be TV shows or movies.

Apple could also work as a better alternative to "OnDemand" by allowing users to access TV shows and movies from different networks on all devices - again leveraging the content already available on iTunes. :)
Click to expand...

I would love to see the octopus-beast looking device that could connect and control all those devices as you've described. I don't see how this could be accomplished without a host of IR blasters and A/V connections, with complex (and error-prone) remote control replication. Extremely un-Apple in my opinion.
 
monaarts said:
This is what I see Apple doing. Allowing the AppleTV to connect to your cable/dish set top box (or an antenna source). With the AppleTV the UI for EVERY provider would be the same (tv guide, on demand, etc.) and it would allow for Apple to offer some cool features by leveraging what is already available on iTunes.

iRecord would allow you to record the TV shows and movies you want from your provider and access it from anywhere with an iOS device or your Mac. It would allow you to 'record' unlimited content too! What it would ACTUALLY do is leverage is the content on iTunes to basically let you stream the content you 'recorded' - whether it be TV shows or movies.

Apple could also work as a better alternative to "OnDemand" by allowing users to access TV shows and movies from different networks on all devices - again leveraging the content already available on iTunes. :)
Click to expand...

And how exactly would they connect to the set top box to do all this? To its HDMI output? And do what?
 
apolloa said:
Why do people keep calling it the iTV? Because to me that just means people keep referring to several TV channels I get, why can't it just be referred to as Apple's television? At lest here in the UK and most likely Europe it'll NEVER be called the iTV. Then again that's if it even exists.

Anyway, if Apple made anything called the iRing I would fall over laughing for a week! So no, I also call total BS on this one.
Click to expand...

I have little (or no) interest in purchasing an Apple-branded television, but I'm finding myself incredibly interested in what they choose to call it. I mean seriously, what do you call an Apple TV when you already have a product called Apple TV?
 
aperry said:
I would love to see the octopus-beast looking device that could connect and control all those devices as you've described. I don't see how this could be accomplished without a host of IR blasters and A/V connections, with complex (and error-prone) remote control replication. Extremely un-Apple in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It could work in a couple of different ways... A replacement for the set top box (maybe Apple kicks back some of the revenue to the provider) or most modern set top boxes are internet enabled meaning they could be controlled via the internet without IR blasters.
 
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