Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Knowing Apple, this will be expensive. What is the incentive for people to buy? People like me don't' mind replacing our iPhone every year, but nobody is going to replace their tv like that. People keep TVs for a long time.
That is one of the key challenges Apple faces with a TV (as opposed to a setup box) - TV's are generally kept for a much longer time than many other gadgets, so they would rapidly obsolete owners of expensive TV's if they keep to their traditional rapid innovation cycles. Unless they find a way to get someone to subsidize sets (like phones) they may wind up with a lot of angry customers.
 
That is one of the key challenges Apple faces with a TV (as opposed to a setup box) - TV's are generally kept for a much longer time than many other gadgets, so they would rapidly obsolete owners of expensive TV's if they keep to their traditional rapid innovation cycles. Unless they find a way to get someone to subsidize sets (like phones) they may wind up with a lot of angry customers.

They're pretty smart... I'm sure they'd take all that into account to make a commercially viable and successful product.
 
i don't understand why people always question whether Apple would bring out a TV set because consumers don't upgrade their TV's every year like they might do with their phones!

Do people upgrade their MacBooks/iMacs every year too?
 
Telling Siri to "play videos of cute cats falling asleep" would return an endless YouTube stream of adorable napping fur balls.​

And this would be a good thing?

Seriously, a Siri interface for a home entertainment system would only have about as much impact on consumer electronics as, say, the remote control. Suddenly, an Apple TV makes all kind of sense.
 
i don't understand why people always question whether Apple would bring out a TV set because consumers don't upgrade their TV's every year like they might do with their phones!

Do people upgrade their MacBooks/iMacs every year too?

Some do. :/
 
Seriously, a Siri interface for a home entertainment system would only have about as much impact on consumer electronics as, say, the remote control. Suddenly, an Apple TV makes all kind of sense.​


I once turned on voice control on our kitchen computer to try it out. By myself it was very cool. "Computer?" "yes?" "Go to CNN dot com". Worked great when I was alone.

With anyone else in the room talking, it was an exercise in frustration getting it to recognize commands.

Makes me think they'd have to put a mike on the remote control, like others have done.

--

I wonder if this all-in-one TV set is going to be Tim's "hobby", just as the previous settop box was Steve's.

I'd like to see Apple get into total home control, myself. Lights, everything.​
 
That is one of the key challenges Apple faces with a TV (as opposed to a setup box) - TV's are generally kept for a much longer time than many other gadgets, so they would rapidly obsolete owners of expensive TV's if they keep to their traditional rapid innovation cycles. Unless they find a way to get someone to subsidize sets (like phones) they may wind up with a lot of angry customers.

I hear that argument over and over again, but I just don't buy it. The television market is HUGE, and every television manufacturer updates their line every year. And just because that CRT in your basement is still humming after 20 years doesn't mean your new LCD will; the lifespans on these things are 5-10 years, at best. You might be in the market for a new TV a lot sooner than you think. Besides, do you replace your laptop every two years? Has that stopped Apple from updating all its Macs every six months?

No, all the fanboys (myself included) won't be able to run out and buy the latest and greatest TV from Apple on the day its released as though it were an iPad, but that doesn't mean the market isn't lucrative for the company. Of course the margins are thin, but do you really think they're making a killing on the current AppleTV?

Moreover, I think Apple stands a much better chance of making splash with a TV as opposed to a revision of the current AppleTV. Yeah, we would love the idea of a $99 box that plugs into our current TV and fulfills our wildest techie wet dreams. But we're techies. To Joe Average, its another box on top of his current home theater kludge. AppleTV has been around for almost 5 years and hasn't made any mainstream impact; even Steve called it "a hobby." GoogleTV is a flop, because nobody wants a band aid on top of their cable box.

But if Apple came out with a sleek-looking TV that got rid of all the clunky remotes, all the space-hogging peripherals, and maybe even the need for cable/satellite altogether? All you have to do is plug it in and wirelessly stream the audio to your AirPlay-equipped receiver? Now that would get people's attention.

We all thought the iPad was stupid because we already had laptops. We all thought the iPhone was stupid we already had phones and iPods. We all thought the iPod was stupid because we had CDs. But look what's happened...

If Apple comes out with another box, it'll hit the market with a thud. If they come out with a "revolutionary" TV, it'll be the biggest thing since color.
 
In that case, yes it's a Google branded experiment I guess with Sony making the hardware. It has a remote with built in keyboard etc. If you search You Tube there are a few reviews on it. It's a completely integrated set.
And why are people picking on you? You honestly replied that you don't read tech news sites other then this one?

Exactly! Thank you for pointing that out apolloa! And yeah, it certainly does look like a nice TV.
 
If Apple comes out with another box, it'll hit the market with a thud. If they come out with a "revolutionary" TV, it'll be the biggest thing since color.

If it's a "revolutionary" TV that doesn't allow everything people are used to, it's going to face a serious uphill battle asking everyone to give up their consoles/ cable/ whatever. If it does, you're still plugging boxes into a screen, just one less. I haven't heard a convincing idea yet of what Apple could bring to the screen itself. I'm not saying there's nothing, just nothing that I've seen suggested.
 
I hear that argument over and over again, but I just don't buy it. The television market is HUGE, and every television manufacturer updates their line every year. And just because that CRT in your basement is still humming after 20 years doesn't mean your new LCD will; the lifespans on these things are 5-10 years, at best. You might be in the market for a new TV a lot sooner than you think.

If yo look at the data, TV's are kept more than 2x as long as laptops (about 10 years longer for most people) - that's a lot longer to keep an all - in - one TV capable of doing all the latest things. If a company wants to shorten that lifespan, I think it will be hard pressed to do so if it is at the the very premium edge of the consumer market (I'll live videophiles out because they are a very different market). An expensive TV is not, for most people, an impulse buy - and having to replace it much more often to keep watching the latest programing will not be an easy thing to convince them to do. A $600 TV - probably - $1600 - not so easy.
It's not a question of simply keeping things that hum but being able to stay current without a large investment - my ancient TV still works with a cable box and gets everything but the HD channels. As a result, it is still a viable product even though it is 10 years old. New TVs, even if they are still "old" by electronic standards, will do HD so all it takes to get everything is a signal; and if you use say Tivo an new box for a hundred or so dollars. That is a lot more easy to sell than a new, expensive TV.

Besides, do you replace your laptop every two years? Has that stopped Apple from updating all its Macs every six months?

Yes, I do. In PC's increasing software demands often drive hardware updates.

No, all the fanboys (myself included) won't be able to run out and buy the latest and greatest TV from Apple on the day its released as though it were an iPad, but that doesn't mean the market isn't lucrative for the company. Of course the margins are thin, but do you really think they're making a killing on the current AppleTV?

Apple, in general, has never settled for low margins on their high end products. Some, such as AppleTV, are a way to extend Apple's content reach into the entertainment area; so lower margins are ok because content sales make up for it.

The real issue is I'm not sure Apple can maintain a competitive advantage in a TV market - all the big players are also very good a sourcing, design, and retailing - they won't go easy into the night.

Moreover, I think Apple stands a much better chance of making splash with a TV as opposed to a revision of the current AppleTV. Yeah, we would love the idea of a $99 box that plugs into our current TV and fulfills our wildest techie wet dreams. But we're techies. To Joe Average, its another box on top of his current home theater kludge. AppleTV has been around for almost 5 years and hasn't made any mainstream impact; even Steve called it "a hobby." GoogleTV is a flop, because nobody wants a band aid on top of their cable box.

AppleTV hasn't really brought anything to the table beyond the ability to stream content form another Mac or network drive and purchase some content. Now, if Apple actually made the AppelTV into a cool device...

But if Apple came out with a sleek-looking TV that got rid of all the clunky remotes, all the space-hogging peripherals, and maybe even the need for cable/satellite altogether? All you have to do is plug it in and wirelessly stream the audio to your AirPlay-equipped receiver? Now that would get people's attention.

Your cable/satellite comment hit on the real issue - how will Apple get content providers to go along with a new model? They are in it for money, and won't alienate their big revenue streams (cable/Satellite) just to play with Apple. Given that some content providers are already owned by cable companies make them even less likely to want to help apple destroy their business model and turn them into a dumb pipe provider.

Even if such a model as you propose takes off - do you think the other manufacturers won't line up to develop models that deliver content and work out deals with content providers. the name of the game is eyeballs and Apple won't deliver as many as the others combined so the real $$ will be in the other players *if* cable/satellite is killed.

We all thought the iPad was stupid because we already had laptops. We all thought the iPhone was stupid we already had phones and iPods. We all thought the iPod was stupid because we had CDs. But look what's happened...

True - Apple is very good a creating a new market paradigm. But if you look at each example they came in at a compelling price point that allowed impulse buying and, especially for the iPad, Apple had a compelling apple controlled content delivery system with enough content to make it a compelling product.

If Apple comes out with another box, it'll hit the market with a thud. If they come out with a "revolutionary" TV, it'll be the biggest thing since color.

Don't count out an apple box - what really matters is software and user experience, not the hardware you watch. Which is why I find it interesting
Appel put a software, not a hardware, guy in charge.

Sure, Apple could come out with an Apple TV; but I think it will be a lot harder for them to demonstrate Schumpeter's creative destruction in that market than in others because of price, use patterns, and where the value (read money) lies in the value chain.

I'd love for Apple to come out with a TV that was so cool and useful that I would wait in line for one. I just think it will be a very tough thing for them to do and starting with a really cool box that gets them into user's homes and creates a large enough market to be interesting to content providers is a more logical strategy.
 
I love the idea but why bother with making the whole set? Didn't they notice how many people jumped for the $100 unit? I was explaining it to a co-worker the other day and she assumed it would be pricey since it was Apple and I told her no, it was only $100 and she said 'well I'll pick it up for only $100!'

Besides, how can you top the slim and sexy led tvs? http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/ultra-slim-bezel-tvs
 
I'm 50/50, it'd prob be a grea TV.....but i bet :apple: would charge through the roof for it. Plus, I bet they'll do a new one every year cycle and really people can't by new TV's every year. Plus some flat screens can be had at some great prices! I'm mixed on this....

Every company is constantly coming out with new TVs that doesn't mean the people with old ones judge them. It's just the way it goes. New HTC phones come out like every month, new iPhones come out every year but nobody gets mad at HTC for advancing too fast. I'm sure Apple can figure out that people won't upgrade their tv's yearly.
 
Had another thought on this Apple TV thing:

Watching what Apple has been pushing: namely 'convergence' where all your tunes, video's, files, communications, etc... are all on as few devices as possible. Which makes me wonder if in addition to the 4k HD thing that was mentioned earlier if we are looking at less the adding of a large screen to a AppleTV box and more the adding of AppleTV functionality, a large high def screen to a core built around something along the lines of a mac mini?

Pick up your iPad, which has a remote app on it, and tap the TV button to see whats on tonight.. if nothing, tap another and it brings up iTunes, a quick facetime call from your boss reminding that you have that report due, so tap that button and you can bring up Word...


Just a shot in the dark.
 
i don't understand why people always question whether Apple would bring out a TV set because consumers don't upgrade their TV's every year like they might do with their phones!

Do people upgrade their MacBooks/iMacs every year too?

maybe annual upgrades on TVs are what :apple: is looking for... ;)
 
Siri can you record Dexter at 9pm on channel 5.

We don't generally upgrade our Televisions, we've had no reason too nothing much changes, well maybe a little more over the past couple of years - HD Ready, Full HD, 3D Enabled, and soon ... 2K Ready, Full 2K, 4K Ready, Full 4K.

Imagine the third party Apple TV accessory market, AppleTV Mounts, Frames, Bezels (Bumpers) ! I'd buy a new AppleTv every couple of years because it would be totally worth it, guarantee Thunderbolt will play a large role in the AppleTV 3.

As much as I loathe Blu-Ray maybe it would have a blu-ray superdrive slot on the side.

Bring on the future Apple.

Funny how stupid all the other tech companies are, they all decide that 10" iPads are too big so they go and make 7" ones that no one buys meanwhile Apple is building 42" and 50" iPads (AppleTV3's) for our living rooms and who wouldn't love a 15" or a 17" iPAD ?
RIP SPJ
 
Last edited:
Siri for the iPhone 4S is amazing. I find myself using it every day mostly to schedule reminders and appointments. I can create events in my calendar faster with Siri than I could manually! Having this feature built into a television set would create a unique experience for TV viewing.
 
People will switch over to an apple tv set because it will be better than all other TVA and the only tv where you can subscribe to channels
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

swarmster said:
As others have mentioned, all of these rumours are missing one thing:

What is the purpose of integrating this into a TV?

TVs are an extremely low-margin business. Why not sell a box (which people are also more liable to upgrade regularly) that you connect to any TV, that you can actually make some money on? In fact, you might notice Apple does this already. Tying your profitable device to a low margin device drives margins down, not up.

Unless they just think there's a limit to consumer interest in set-top boxes and it needs to be a TV "platform" to gain any traction? Or unless they're going a protected-device route and dealing directly with cable companies (kind of like the iPhone/carrier model), maybe with special platform-specific plans that let you pick and choose channels and the like. That would be interesting, but again, the rumours haven't come anywhere close to something on that scale.

I don't think the big breakthrough is going to be "it's a TV that streams your iTunes!"

Because adding such a device to any number of TVs makes the whole thing many magnitude more complex before you even start.

Controlling a true plug and play tv experience with a logical interface would likely be massively popular. TVs have interfaces like sell phones did before 2007. They are all consulted messes almost always lacking common sense.

You buy a tv you have to learn how to use that tv, learn how this external box works with that tv etc dtc or you can just plug it in and turn it on.
 
I wish Apple does a limited edition line of products honoring Steve. U2 got an iPod, he should get a whole line of products.
 
Maybe reason enough

;) Ever since these rumors began I've questioned what benefit selling televisions could provide to Apple or its customers. All the more as HDTVs are rapidly becoming a commodity item. But if Apple is envisioning a paradigm shift in the industry and viewer experience, then perhaps an exciting development.

The most revolutionary aspect might be if Apple could prevail among all the content providers to allow their customers to view what they want when they want, and of course simply and easily. Incorporation of Siri would be nice, but technology alone does not answer this broader question.

Among other ideas I'd mention to Apple in that hoped for would be automatic file backup. I'm speaking specifically of iTunes, and what is presently experienced when purchasing this media. The advent of iCloud and being able to re-download that already purchased answers part of this dilemma. But they still recommend one backup this data on their own, and therein lies one big problem. For most of us it likely still comes down to having to manually transfer data to separate backup hard drives.

It would be nice, if among all its other gizmos, if this new iTV, or whatever they call it, would automatically backup and organize all iTunes data on connected hard drives. Or even some solution more elegant.

But if the reality of that promised by an Apple television is to be realized, then the entire viewing experience will need to be significantly enhanced -- or no reason not to skip the premium cost for any of many other choices in your average HDTV, whether one can talk to it or not.
 
I am sure ready to see what they have in mind. I would settle for a super-duper Apple remote that was self-programing and would control everything.

Harmonys are fine for what they do, but programing them is no fun at all and then they don't work as well as the devices that come with the components.

A TV could be an upscale technology like OLED or Laser. That would justify charging more. Apple is good at buying up supplies and therefore controlling the price and the availability to competitors.
 
That is one of the key challenges Apple faces with a TV (as opposed to a setup box) - TV's are generally kept for a much longer time than many other gadgets, so they would rapidly obsolete owners of expensive TV's if they keep to their traditional rapid innovation cycles. Unless they find a way to get someone to subsidize sets (like phones) they may wind up with a lot of angry customers.

Software upgrades most likely will support older models for quite some time with an official Apple TV. Hell I am already amazed at how long of a life an iPhone gets, the 3GS still gets iOS 5 support, remember that :).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.