Apple Nixed Plans for Apple-Branded Television Set 'More Than a Year Ago'

[Piggie]

I feel we all know it's pretty clear the real reasons behind this:

1: Apple does not make anything other than some circuit board designs, a pretty case to put things in, and put together the software.

Hardware wise there is nothing they can bring to the table.

They know they cannot compete on price/quality.

2. More importantly. Apple only really want to be involved in hardware they can CONTROL and define how the user will use the product.

How many people would want to buy a locked down TV, that would not be able to probably connect to other competing services?

If Apple could actually produce something great, they looked great, performed great, at a good price point, and styled it nice to match other Apple gear, they would sell millions.

Unfortunately there nowadays over controlling manner of doing business means they cannot bring themselves to simply do this.
So it's act like a little child time again. Either we want it all our way, or we are not doing anything.

So they are choosing, not doing anything.

As I say, there is ZERO reason for them simply to not launch a nicely styled 4K Apple set, with a reasonable price point, and have a replaceable Apple TV Module unit that fitted into a slot on the back of the set, so they could upgrade that part of it whenever needed.

 

[ColdShadow]

So glad they ditched it.
there was no need for a Apple branded TV set..it probably would have been a display plus added facetime camera,siri and Apple TV mixed .all in a aluminium thin body and 3x higher price tag than other high end Tvs by Samsung,Panasonic,Sony etc just because if that.
who wants that? and you had to upgrade the damn thing much more often than normsl TVs..
there was no need for that.Apple TV already exists..specially when the updated version is on it's way,problem solved.

 

[thekeyring]

TV is crap, there's no use in trying to fix it. It's not like the cellphone, the music player, or the computer, which were all great things but were fiddly and annoying to use and Apple tried to make them better and more useful. The TV is not "great but annoying to use", it's crap and annoying to use, it's on its way out, it's had its prime time, it's too late to try to make it better.

This! +1,000,000,000

Though content is good. In the days when the only way of getting content from A to B was a live broadcast, that's what we had to do. Goodness knows why we still do it now, though.

I can watch The Simpsons on Channel 4. I can even record it on a Sky+ box. But for some reason "licensing" means I can't watch it on demand on All4 (Channel 4's on demand service). This is the problem that needs solving.

Using live pause and recording shows mean you can fast forward past ads on traditional TV. That's not a problem on demand, so why don't content providers prefer it? Why does it matter which screen we're watching on?!

The fact TV stations have to churn out 24 hours of content a day is madness. No body watches TV for 24 hours a day (everyone needs to sleep), so if you make it on demand you can produce less content and save money.

 

[MH01]

Damn, was looking forward to a proper Apple TV .

 

[alphaod]

Just got a Xiaomi Mi Box...

For less than $50, all the content I want. Granted most of it's is pirated, but I'd pay a monthly fee for some of this.

It's got all the bells and whistles of a proper device with 4K TV support, everything.

 

[breather]

MFi

Keep making Apple TV and start an MFi initiative for Tv´s so ATV can take over the TV´s...

 

[MH01]

I feel we all know it's pretty clear the real reasons behind this:

1: Apple does not make anything other than some circuit board designs, a pretty case to put things in, and put together the software.

Hardware wise there is nothing they can bring to the table.

They know they cannot compete on price/quality.

2. More importantly. Apple only really want to be involved in hardware they can CONTROL and define how the user will use the product.

How many people would want to buy a locked down TV, that would not be able to probably connect to other competing services?

If Apple could actually produce something great, they looked great, performed great, at a good price point, and styled it nice to match other Apple gear, they would sell millions.

Unfortunately there nowadays over controlling manner of doing business means they cannot bring themselves to simply do this.
So it's act like a little child time again. Either we want it all our way, or we are not doing anything.

So they are choosing, not doing anything.

As I say, there is ZERO reason for them simply to not launch a nicely styled 4K Apple set, with a reasonable price point, and have a replaceable Apple TV Module unit that fitted into a slot on the back of the set, so they could upgrade that part of it whenever needed.

Those are actually very good points. I can see where you are coming from in relation to the control issues.

 

[iKen1]

The title should read "MacRumors, and sites like it, nixed Apples plans for a TV by allowing Samsung to steal their ideas".

 

[Mums]

Apple TV was never the answer, and Jobs knew that. They can only now speculate with any accuracy as to the future of video and other content consumption in the post-television age.

 

[Ed217]

Its not about the display, but the content and UI. Content that will likely come across the web.

Most homes already have good displays. Thats a tough area and not one where they would make $.

A set top box that does content, games, apps, web cam, home control, Siri...thats a game they can play well.

 

[samcraig]

One man's opinion. Look at the TV market right now. It's a mess. Does it really matter if Apple steps in deeper in 2015 vs. 2012? Nope. At the moment that they do, things will begin to change radically, and the industry will follow.

If you say so. To further my point, the profit margins on TV sets ate also much lower than Apple is accustomed.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

As others have said, this news isn't surprising, but it's still welcome. TV's dominate our homes today - the more affluent customers going so far as to decorate a theatre room with high end equipment, and on the other end of the spectrum, picking up sets just under £200 for bed/spare rooms. Apple wouldn't be in a position to compete as the choice is what drives consumers to purchase; not so much the brand or eco-system.

 

[maflynn]

I'm surprised it took them that long to kill off the idea. Televisions are an aging product, with little left to innovate and razor thin margins. Apple with his premium product pricing would not have faired very well.

 

[peterdevries]

Not nonsense. Until TV networks and studios start broadcasting 4K, it will be a fad. You like most here are techies. We seek out the latest and greatest. The general public is not like us. There is really no reason for Joe Q. Public to upgrade from his current TV today.

I'm far from a techie

What I was implying was that many new TVs sold now are UHD already. Maybe people are not actively upgrading because of it, but people that are in the TV market now are considering the option to be future-proof.

we should not discount the power of Netflix and others. The growth figures of these kinds of content providers show that they are gaining steam also for non-techies. I and many of my friends (not implying that is the entire market) have basically quit watching general TV because there is good offer from Netflix and other outlets. General TV is definitely feeling this and needs to upgrade their tech to keep up.

 

[malexandria]

External HD, Internet and Keyboard

It'd be awesome if the new Apple TV included support

1. External HD so I can run my Media Library directly through the Apple TV instead of through iTunes Share.

2. Browser support so I can watch Online Content without having to unplug my laptop and run it directly to my TV - AIRPLAY ***** SUCKS and never works.

3. Vudu and Amazon Prime came to Apple TV.

3 Simple things that would make this my dream, universal streaming device. Of course NONE of this will happen, but I could dream.

And of course it'd be nice if the Apple TV and iTunes had a uniform look and feel and for god sake let me rent something on my computer and play it on the stupid Apple TV. But that's too much to ask.

 

[peterdevries]

Right... What is your set (Almost 100% of current low end consumer panels are plain horrible as TV's in all metrics)... What size is it and what distance to you look at this set (Are does it "not matter" (sic)). You realize internet content is compressed out of its mind compared to native content and your not getting close to the best quality/resolution out of it.

So, despite all of this. You think it is supposedly "all worth it"?

The only place 4K makes sense right now is for big high end TVs watching native content and desktop monitors.

For native content, on high end TVs it makes sense if you optimally have your head at :
5 feet (50 inch), couch about 3.5 feet from TV
5.5 (60 inch), couch about 4 feet from TV
6 feet (65 inch), couch at 4.5 feet from TV
7 feet (75 inch), couch at 5.5 feet from TV
You can sit slightly close than that, but then you don't see the whole screen without turning your head. Notice that few people put their sofa that close to their TVs.
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

Samsung UE48HU7500. One of the smaller TVs but one of the best tested 4Ks on the market (cost 1500 Dollars). I know about the general rule for distance from the couch. However. I have done extensive tests at home with content from different sources and I can tell you that there is a large difference between 1080P and 4K content of the same type.

The quality of Netflix 4k is actually very good. Especially House of Cards was a big chance after I activated the 4k option.

So, in general I know about the general principle of distance vs screen size, however in my personal subjective opinion the quality is definitely and easily perceptible from even 12 feet. That might not only be due to pixel size but also to other attributes. It is a great TV.

 

[theluggage]

and I don't know anyone that owns one or even talking about getting one. Will this go the way of 3D television?

You mean: will we suffer a couple of years where, despite lack of demand, it is nigh on impossible to get a mid/high end TV without 4k before the idea fades away?

I think it depends whether people are suckered in by those stupid over-sharpened 4k demo videos in showrooms, designed to make 4k sets look sharper when you wouldn't normally see the difference on anything less than a 100" set. Personally, to me, they just look as if everything has been digitally rotoscoped. badly.

What I would consider buying would be:

- Nice 40" HDTV (4k if you really must)
- Decent sound system (external speakers, maybe wireless?)
- No tuner
- WiFi/Ethernet bridge & hub
- HDMI CEC support & TCP/IP-to-CEC bridge.
- Basic AppleTV-like remote with option to use iOS remote app.
- No other 'smart' features
- About 10 HDMI inputs (with Ethernet), a few USB sockets for power, a couple of Ethernet sockets.

...into which you plug your BluRay, Tivo, Roku, AppleTV, ChromeCast, Amazon FireTV stick, NowTV dongle, FreeView, cable STB, satellite STB you need to cover all the services you actually want.

 

[Nightarchaon]

So Bascially apple cant figure out how to sell people a $5000+ TV set that you will need to bin and buy a new one every 2 years, oh, and a way to charge networks 30% for all content you watch onh the TV ..


As soon as they figure that out, they will be back on it like a rash

 

[Benjamin Frost]

“I finally cracked it,” said Steve Jobs.

He was lamenting his beloved B&O tv of 40 years, which he had accidentally broken.

----------

I guess Gene Munster will be crying into his Sugar Puffs this morning, taking consolation in the Honey Munster.

 

[maflynn]

3. Vudu and Amazon Prime came to Apple TV.

Apple isn't about to add competing streaming services to their products.

 

[vladi]

First of all argument that TVs cannot be innovated is false, of course it can. And no TV is not on its way out just yet (sadly imo) its still marketers number one tool that they spend the most money on.

Much like laptop there are two spectrums here as well: software/content and hardware/viewing quality. TV market is so tight and all the big players are too invested in it to let Apple come in. In order for Apple to compete with premium price tag it would require them to have state of the art panel which none would be willing to provide I can guarantee you that. Sharp or Eizo would probably be the only players willing to collaborate but hey themselves have made many promising to others to go ahead and get exclusivity with Apple.

Without proper high quality panel Apple couldn't charge a premium, well technically they could but what Apple does really well is hiding quite ordinary quality in perceived high quality shell. Unfortunately that cannot be done with TV cause picture says thousands of words and they would get exposed quite fast if the went with just high quality panel.

Im sure if they went that route by just having an ordinary high quality panel they would have probably tried to find a gimmick that would be a selling point. Obviously they couldn't find it.

I'm also sure if they could have developed or outsourced ultra quality panel we would have seen TV announced because image quality is number one selling point with high end TVs. If they had something like Sony X900B or X900C we would be hearing about it.

 

[anomie]

Maybe Jobs was referring to the AppleTV when he said he "cracked it". A t.v. is a t.v. when all is said and done and it's all about the content as well as picture quality. Bells and whistles are fine as an attraction, but don't hold up too well in the long run (ahem... 3D -cough!-). Ever try using SMART TV on a Samsung? My God it's slow as hell and the router was just down the hallway. Now AppleTV I like (I have 2 of them) and I am eagerly awaiting to see what Apple will announce at the WWDC this June (I hope it's a new AppleTV). I am liking the new channels like Tastemade which, IMHO, offers way better programs than what Food Network is offering these days. Use Plex with AppleTV and if you have access to download the shows you like or are curious about, it's better than cable.

Jobs didn´t crack anything. Using Plex to feed your out of date AppleTV sure is not the thing he thought about when he was sure to "crack it".
In the end he failed and there won´t be any real TV revolution since TVs are intuitive enough already.
If he really meant the AppleTV then he more than failed since ATV gets more and more irrelevant.

 

[Popeye206]

I'm glad if this is true. I don't think competing in an already crowded market with TV sets is a good business decision unless they could truly do something unique. The TV business is just a race to the bottom at the moment and margins are getting thin. Not a category for Apple to enter.

However, make a killer set-top box and marry it with Apps, and some great channel choices and now you have a compelling product that fits. Let Samsung, Sony and the rest compete for the display.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple isn't about to add competing streaming services to their products.

Spotify on my iPhone says hi.

 

[peterdevries]

Jobs didn´t crack anything. Using Plex to feed your out of date AppleTV sure is not the thing he thought about when he was sure to "crack it".
In the end he failed and there won´t be any real TV revolution since TVs are intuitive enough already.
If he really meant the AppleTV then he more than failed since ATV gets more and more irrelevant.

He died prematurely of cancer. I wouldn't call that necessarily "failing". I'm not sure whether you actually read the book, but he was obviously not referring to the current ATV in the statement that he had "cracked TV".

The ATV might get more irrelevant in your eyes, but it is still the best selling STB around. In addition you can't blame Jobs for the current state of the ATV as he has been dead for several years now.