Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I find this highly unlikely. Even if I did believe and it came true I couldn't afford one.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)

No demand for another smart TV.

Instead Apple TV needs more features:

- access to more web content
- more integration with macs and iDevices
- DVR that's iDevice compatible without transcoding
- gaming
 
This is a false rumor. Absolutely no way will this happen.

First of all Google failed with their TV.

Second of all, it is much better to have the components separate. You can more easily pass the audio to a home entertainment system for surround sound. With a component built into the TV, you have cables going back in the other direction to the receiver. If audio and video both take the same path there is less change of them getting out of sync.

And, let's not forget that Apple tries to appease DRM owners.

So, you most likely couldn't play anything you don't own outright on such a TV.
 
How do these analysts earn money? Who ever pays them, should be fired. If we have to wait until September for the iPhone/iPod refresh, it's going to be 5 long and painful months putting up with all this crap everyday from the rumormill.

The closest I could see to this might be a rebranded Samsung set that contains an ATV, sold by Samsung
 
Last edited:
I don't see this happening, TV technology changes to fast to get stuck with an expensive TV that you need to keep for many years to justify the higher price.

Case in point the new Bose videowave TV it's over $5k for a 46" tv! :eek:
 
The current Apple TV is a great product at a great price. They just need to expand on it by adding more features and more capability. Open it up for apps, especially when combined with an iPod Touch, iPad, iPhone and you could have an amazing product.
 
Not a single analyst has explained WHY this would be better for Apple than simply selling more Apple TVs. They just say it like it makes sense and expect us to believe them.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

WHY would Apple want to take on shipments of large, expensive packages?

WHY would Apple want to limit their market for a new product to people who want an entirely new TV?

WHY do you think Apple cares more about what logo is on the back of the TV that by what software is showing up on the screen?

And WHY isn't the Apple TV good enough for the goal of getting the iOS and iTunes worlds into the living room?

I think the changes to the latest Apple TV is a sign of where Apple wants to be headed. The next Apple TV will be even smaller and come free when you buy a Mac, iPad, or iPhone. Wait and see! Just like giving e-mail away helps Google's ecosystem, so does getting Apple TVs into people's houses help Apple's ecosystem.

Selling some $2,000 TV doesn't help with that.

I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense. But that doesn't mean I think Apple will never do it! Apple (i.e. Jobs?) are obsessed with controlling the entire user-experience, and as such might love to add their own HDTV to complete the solution.

There's a lot of potential to add a lot more integration between TV and Mac/PC. Typically this has just been "PC as a video/audio source for the TV", but you could add on-screen notifications/messages even while watching other sources (such as cable), far better TV-based browsers, faster & better looking TV-guides etc.

Yes there is a lot of competition out there, but Apple are quite good at taking on a "commodity" low-margin market and adding value to it and thriving. And I'd love to see the design they come up with.
 
Maybe Apple tv parts integrated?

It would be interesting if they provided the parts to other manufacturers for "comes with Apple tv" TVs. The only time they've done something like that though is the Motorola ROKR with iTunes built in and that didn't work out very well at all.

I can't imagine them selling an Apple-branded TV unless they decide to integrate Apple TVs into the cinema displays? But it seems like most people are buying 40-60" TVs these days and Apple only sells 27" displays now.
 
What does it take to be an analyst now? Just some 20-sided dice and a few key/buzz word decisions to make?

These guys throw out hundreds of the wild-ass predictions each year and just through sheer probability, someone is right. But they always pat each other on the back in each other's blogs with stuff like "Wow, White really nailed that one didn't he".
 
Yeah, this is stupid! I see no reason for Apple to release their own television set.

As a few others have mentioned, I could see Apple license iOS or AirPlay for integration int the sets manufactured by others.

And the current generation AppleTV is more then powerful enough to support the rumored video streaming service. If Apple does release this service (low cost subscription) I will be one of the first to signup. (Good Bye crappy Hulu+).
 
man how much would this thing cost? the 27" display is already 1000 bucks, and this would have to be at lease 42" for people to put it in their living rooms.

Apple 27" display is 2560x1440 resolution. A 1080P TV is 1920x1080. There is a big difference in cost of the panel. Any 2560x1440 display is going to cost in the ball park that Apple's 27" is in. I paid about $1150 for my Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) and I am perfectly happy having paid that for the number of pixels I get. 1080P panels are a lot cheaper due to being easier to manufacturer and the fact that they sell much higher quantities than high-res panels like those in the Apple 27" or a 2560x1600 30" (economies of scale).

Though I don't think Apple is making a TV, but if they do, it better be a plasma (better picture quality than LCD).
 
No thanks I allready built myself a HTPC which will be better than anything Apple do unless they add OS X into a tv. Even then Id still prefer my HTPC because it runs Windows 7.
 
Errrrr. No.

Apple would be out of their mind to enter this market...

They have a low cost device that can hook up with any TV in the market today... So why would they ask consumers to choose their ENTIRE TV set-up to get at "that on steroids." That gets them into a crappy margin business (they have 60%+ margins on their blend of products, TVs are about 5%...)

Far more likely is an "Apple TV on steroids" which we all know is possible with an A5 chip, apps, etc etc....

Look for that offering... Not a TV....
 
Time to start the following threads...

"Apple HDTV Shipping Thread"
"What do you use your Apple HDTV for?"
"Apple HDTV Backlight Bleeding"
"I've got a speck of dust under my Apple HDTV glass cover, should I return?"
"Darn Apple HDTV Scalpers!!!"
"What color Apple HDTV should I get?"
 
Every time a new product like this from Apple is rumored, it follows a predictable pattern: 1) People look at existing, entrenched offerings by other companies. 2) They assume Apple will add some slightly different functionality and charge a lot more money for the product, and ask, "How many people would pay a premium for something just because it has the Apple logo and does a couple more things than existing products? And why would Apple enter that market, anyway?" 3) Steve Jobs says that Apple has no plans to enter that market. ("Nobody watches TV anymore. Everyone is reading books on their iPads.") 3) Apple announces that it is indeed entering that market, with a magical, game-changing product. 4) People still assume it will be an over-priced slight variation on existing products and predict that it will be an epic fail. 5) Apple releases the product, which is radically different in some ways from anything else that's out there, and/or offers a user experience that is significantly more refined than anything else that's out there. 6) People line up in droves to buy it, and sales go through the roof. 7) The people who predicted it would be an epic fail were among the first in line to buy it (unless they're waiting for the Android version that will come out a year later), and now they're whining that it's been six months already, and there have been no rumors about what might be in rev 2 of the product, which was great in its day but is now getting stale.

In other words, I believe this rumor is credible only if Apple has some new take on the television set that none of us are even guessing at yet. I highly doubt they'd release a conventional TV with only the guts of the AppleTV added to it.
 
Eh I don't see it. I think it's a jump the shark move.

What are they going to do?

Make an aluminum frame?

INclude a tiny aluminum remote with few buttons?

Build the ATV inside?

Let you calibrate it and configure it from the computer?

Video conferencing?

Put nice speakers inside?

Give it a much higher resolution that doubles as a nice computer monitor?

I don't see this stuff as having a big market.

Or maybe they make your tv the computer also? BAsically an iMac. Maybe they release a 42" iMac for $3000.

Still sounds like jump the shark to me.
 
Screw that...

I can see them licensing AirPlay to third party, but Apple would do best to stick with upgrading and expanding the functionality of the cute hockey puck sized ATV.
$99 is an amazing price point for the ATV and pretty much everyone has HDTVs. I would love to see a native screen mirroring function for iOS and Macs, but we are more likely to see an Apple branded subscription and iAd supplemented media streaming service to compete with Pandora and Netflix.
 
I can see it now..... people camping out overnight and long lines of knuckleheads with their Radio Flyer wagons waiting to purchase the Apple mandated 2 max!
 
Time to start the following threads...

"Apple HDTV Shipping Thread"
"What do you use your Apple HDTV for?"
"Apple HDTV Backlight Bleeding"
"I've got a speck of dust under my Apple HDTV glass cover, should I return?"
"Darn Apple HDTV Scalpers!!!"
"What color Apple HDTV should I get?"



"Should I jailbreak my Apple HDTV?"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.