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.
Analyst Claims Apple Launching 55- and 65-Inch 4K Televisions Late Next Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ha! I know you're not trying to say that ios6 was any better in that area....? C'mon now.
Many consumers are basically done with traditional TV's.
Don't like to sit in front of a big screen, when they can use iPads wherever they go and each person has his/her own device.
These days the teenagers all disappear into their rooms to text , face time etc.
with their friends. They watch movies a different way and it isn't unusual for them to watch a movie with the family, but texting etc. during it.
A TV (especially large sizes) ties you down in a location, i.e. you can't move it, take it with you, walk around with it and that is poison for todays ADD generation with short attention spans.
Entertainment is no longer being consumed only in front of a TV, rather the larger TV sizes are just playback screens for Xbox or when one wants kind of a movie experience.
Apple, us larger iPads and we are good!
Which means it's 99.9% certain to be bunk. Just like the past how many years.
Someone is trying to pad this other company's stock by association. Nothing more to see.
This is what threw me, Plasma has glass screens, LED/LCD don't. Its the reason plasma sets are so much heavier in larger sizes. So where is gorilla glass going? I am not of the belief that OED requires glass
I just can't personally see the need for an Apple branded Television. I'm quite happy with the functionality of my Apple TV 1st and 3rd gen. They serve different functions. The 1st gen as a portable movie player for the kids to take to grandparents (though it could even be connected to their (grandparent's) in minivan media system) for long trips. The 3rd to stream movies and AirPlay around the home.
I'd rather them add cable STB functionality, give it a real remote control and drop the price. I'd happily have one of these on each TV for $50 each.
As for a TV, I'm fine with a dumb monitor if I can get a nice picture, good size at a reasonable price. Then I can connect any current box to it and stay up to date. I don't have the money to replace a big TV every couple of years, but a little box is easy to replace.
I'd rather them add cable STB functionality, give it a real remote control and drop the price. I'd happily have one of these on each TV for $50 each.
As for a TV, I'm fine with a dumb monitor if I can get a nice picture, good size at a reasonable price. Then I can connect any current box to it and stay up to date. I don't have the money to replace a big TV every couple of years, but a little box is easy to replace.
I disagree, to a degree. The two could come together. Or rather three.
New set top box with graphics processor etc to handle that level of feed. New service with content at consume friendly pricing etc, including perhaps an option to 'Plus' up to the new 4k version (likely only movies at first with extras and TV at better 1080 for now). And, perhaps with a 'one more thing' homage to Steve, a new display to act as your TV. No tuner etc cause you don't need it with your Apple TV box which is now packed with those TV apps. Or hook it up to your cable box, computer etc. Yep Apple's Smart TV would be a dumb one, which would settle the question of upgrading the hardware etc. Perhaps they might even do a launch deal of buying the display and getting the box for free.
----------
Majority of the world would likely feel this way. But as Munster keeps telling us, THAT TV I'll be out this year. This new talk is about the REAL Apple TV 2
They're just conflating rumors
The 4K monitor Apple is going to put out will be the next Cinema Display, not TV. It wont be 65" but will cost $2K.
As far as the TV goes - if they're smart, they'll stick to the 3" cube that connects to the TV and delivers content. Maybe add a cable input, the ability to record, and the ability to produce a schedule for all live content so you can setup recordings for future broadcasts.
The 4K monitor Apple is going to put out will be the next Cinema Display, not TV. It wont be 65" but will cost $2K.
As far as the TV goes - if they're smart, they'll stick to the 3" cube that connects to the TV and delivers content. Maybe add a cable input, the ability to record, and the ability to produce a schedule for all live content so you can setup recordings for future broadcasts.
This "analyst" also claims that there may or may not be a Gold option with TouchID. He's not a very good analyst.
An Apple 4K TV at this price? No way.
Ah, and LG display? No thanks.
Actually it might be surprisingly inexpensive. I read somewhere that a small manufacturer was making 4K TVs and selling them for about twice the price of regular HD TVs. So a 55 was about $1,400. Not that big a deal. When asked how his TVs were so cheap he answered, "I don't really know why other 4K TVs are expensive, it doesn't cost that much more to make them."
The other TV manufacturers may be trying to protect their invested manufacture lines in their 1080p TVs. So they are putting prices high. But if there is little actual real reason for the price to be that high, a manufacturer that only makes 4K TVs might be able to go low. They would have no existing lines to cannibalize.
I'd bet money this one isn't going to happen.
4K displays, especially "retina" ones somewhere around 27" make sense, but not TVs.
Apple's all about content from iTunes... how are people going to stream content from iTunes to their 4K TVs? Mostly people would have to purchase and start downloading the day before... NOT very Apple.
And this stuff about Gorilla glass seems weird... you can't put one in your pocket! Do you really need special tempered scratch resistent glass for a TV you hang on a wall? IDK, I don't have kids so maybe that is something people want, but doesn't everyone just put a cabinet or something in front?
This is so crazy it makes me thing Masahiko Ishino is actually a Gene Munster alias.
4K displays, especially "retina" ones somewhere around 27" make sense, but not TVs.
Apple's all about content from iTunes... how are people going to stream content from iTunes to their 4K TVs? Mostly people would have to purchase and start downloading the day before... NOT very Apple.
And this stuff about Gorilla glass seems weird... you can't put one in your pocket! Do you really need special tempered scratch resistent glass for a TV you hang on a wall? IDK, I don't have kids so maybe that is something people want, but doesn't everyone just put a cabinet or something in front?
This is so crazy it makes me thing Masahiko Ishino is actually a Gene Munster alias.
And the irony is that Youtube, Netflix and internet streaming are inferior than SD and becoming more popular. People wants the content and are very willing to sacrifice quality. What matter is the story of the video more than the quality. If people wanted quality, Youtube would be gone and is not.
for me 4K is just a way to sell more video equipment and discontinue what we have now. We didn't need HD any way still. Yes, looks good... so? To watch MTV? The Kardassians? bunch of reality shows? the news? 98% of what you see on tv is generated is SD or less originally. Most of the times in cellphones.
I'm sure this will be expensive, if it comes out. I'm in a "I'll believe it when I see it" mood.
One problem I see with this is I seriously doubt most people's internet connection is fast enough to stream a decent quality 4K video. Hopefully, if this does ship, it'll make people & companies upgrade their internet connections.
One problem I see with this is I seriously doubt most people's internet connection is fast enough to stream a decent quality 4K video. Hopefully, if this does ship, it'll make people & companies upgrade their internet connections.
Exactly...with the technology, the screen size, and Apple's huge margin. More like $3000 for a 55" 4k unit. 4k 55" screens today START at $4000. So a full year from now they might drop to $2500 if we're lucky.
You're right, but 99% of the people asking about content are referring to video. I don't think many people are out there looking for an ultra high resolution display for picture slideshows.
For one, they probably bought it due to marketing hype. And sadly, most probably are just viewing downscaled versions on mobile devices or social media sites.
I don't believe this rumor.
In a market where flatscreen sales are decreasing, it would make no sense for Apple to launch tv's.
The only reason this turns up as a rumor is for other tv-manufacturers to leech on the possibility that maybe Apple believes in the 4K (hype), so they will buy their 4K tv's instead.
In a market where flatscreen sales are decreasing, it would make no sense for Apple to launch tv's.
The only reason this turns up as a rumor is for other tv-manufacturers to leech on the possibility that maybe Apple believes in the 4K (hype), so they will buy their 4K tv's instead.
To me it looks like that companies like Sony try to create demand where there is no need. To ME 1080p looks perfectly fine.
For those of you saying "we've been hearing this for years, this will never happen, blah blah blah"...
iPhone (rumors started in 1999)- http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/26/the-apple-tablet-a-complete-history-supposedly/#rumortimeline
iPad (rumors started in 2004)- http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/timeline-apple-iphone-rumors-1999-present
iPhone (rumors started in 1999)- http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/26/the-apple-tablet-a-complete-history-supposedly/#rumortimeline
iPad (rumors started in 2004)- http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/timeline-apple-iphone-rumors-1999-present
720p
DVDs
Dude get on board with the future. This kind of comments have been going on since the transition VHS -> laserdiscs / DVDs.
Plenty of 1080p sources out there on the web, plenty of Blu-rays, not to mention the fact the generalization of 4K TV will bring more 4K sources.
Now, a good quality1080p (like the Blu-ray "remasters") will look better on a 4K TV anyway.
Don't take my word for it, go to a shop where you can see a demo and compare the two.
Dude, whatever.
Just because a new tech comes along doesn't mean that its adoption is automatically essential. A lot of new tech is designed to squeeze money out of people who feel the need to be "on board" with the shiniest and newest of everything. Maybe some people feel inadequate if they aren't the first of their block to lay out serious cash for barely usable tech -- but trust me, not everyone suffers from this complex, and it isn't because there's something wrong with them.
These comments will continue so long as the majority of programming being pushed down the cable pipes is still SD, and the rest is 720p, at best. Is it possible to seek out 1080p programming? Sure, but "seek out" is the operative term. Like it or not, we've been stuck in the SD to HD transition purgatory for more than ten years now, and we are hardly closer to full HD programming today than we were years ago. It's a mess. Adding 4K to that mess just makes it a bigger mess. And a more expensive mess. No thanks.
Incidentally, many people don't have any use for gigantic TV sets. If you have space for nothing larger than 32", then 720p is enough, and obviously 4K is a total waste of tech and money.
----------
Exactly, and if your set is less that 40" then I defy anyone to tell whether it's 1080 or 720.
All the more reason to release a new AppleTV now, release an SDK, and have shears worth of content there for the launch of the actual TV. Obviously apple will create a killer app or ten for it as well. But wouldn't it be a better sell when it comes out, to say "look at al this you get with our tv compared to others."
But then again, if you could get 90% of the apps with an existing, or newly updated appleTV, why buy the whole real TV, at a high price premium, from apple.
I guess I think content is king, and apple thinks their name on a product with a big margin is king(see current appleTV).
But then again, if you could get 90% of the apps with an existing, or newly updated appleTV, why buy the whole real TV, at a high price premium, from apple.
I guess I think content is king, and apple thinks their name on a product with a big margin is king(see current appleTV).
you mad, bro?
if you werent interested in future apple products, you wouldnt be slumming it on a website devoted to...future apple products. doh!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Besides, 4K is a scam.....don't buy into it. Unless you need a TV that's 70" or more, there's no value. Your eyes can't see the difference at normal viewing distances. I don't know about you, but I'm not watching my 60" 1080p plasma from 3' away and complaining I can see the pixels
This very same argument was beat to death on this very site in support of "720p is good enough" while Apple was still clinging to that. Then, Apple adopted 1080p and all those people who made this argument seemed to vanish and some of them gushed about the greatness of 1080p.
I can appreciate the argument you're making and those who will agree with you now- while Apple tech is still pushing 1080p- but the key is will you still feel this way after Apple rolls out 4K? Those of us who found fault with devices like
TV 2 & 1 for being capped at 720p were thoroughly ripped into by the "720p is good enough" crowd. We were "stupid", "trolls", "if you don't like it, don't buy it", "the chart", "until broadband increases everywhere", "the internet will crash", and on and on by the "whatever Apple endorses is right" crowd. Then, Apple rolls out 1080p and they don't find any fault with Apple for going 1080p. What happened to "720p is good enough", "the chart" and all of that? Why isn't Apple "stupid", etc for embracing 1080p per all those "it's overkill", "gimmick", "no one can see the difference" arguments?4K will be generally "stupid", etc right up until Apple rolls out 4K. Then it will be gushing greatness, "how did we ever live without this?", "shut up and take my money", etc. Same story, over and over. Once it's here, we can repeat it all again with 8K resolution right on it's heels.
Last edited: