I doubt Apple would offer more pixels than a consumer can tell sitting at an average distance from the TV, just to say they completed a checkbox. If it does not make much of a difference for the average consumer, it will not be a headline feature.
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.
Apple Said to Be Working with Foxconn, Corning and Innolux on 'iTV' for 2014 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know you sound like the people that were talking about the rumored iPhone and used the exact same questions/arguments on why Apple would even bother.
Not ragging on you or anything but the same questions were asked about the iPhone.
Apple has shown they can change the experience of a segment. I'm sure they'll do the same with the TV.
Not at the bit-rate iTunes would stream it at!
But seriously, to make 4K TV take off you need lots of content, just like there was with HDTV. Over a fairly short period of time the broadcast networks converted all their scripted programming, all their sports, and eventually all the news, soaps, talk shows, etc.
I've been thinking of other markets Apple has entered.The ipod didn't offer better sound or breakthrough technology(other than being small).But using it was a joy.iPhone?Other phones had touch screens and made calls.How many"My n95 can do all that and it's cheaper"posts did we see after the iPhone launched?I think Apple's biggest advantage is the user experience.They don't need 4k,they just need a top spec display,and if they truly have"cracked"how to make a wildly superior experience at a price people will pay it will be a success.
One thing is for sure,we will still see plenty of"My[insert brand]TV does all that and it costs less!"posts!
On a minor point, they've done all this spotting, but they've failed to notice that Apple still can't call it the 'iTV', the UK television company, ITV (Independant Television) won't let them. I believe there was an original lawsuit and they once again reiterated that it was they're name when Steve Jobs was quoted saying he had cracked it and everyone was talking about iTV again.
What would differentiate this from a Sony, or LG? I'll give you a couple of reasons: No gimmicky 3D, the 'smart TV' elements will all be Mac/ iProduct orientated - not a bunch of cheesey features I'll never EVER use, the iIntergration itself, and any problems with it will involve no more hassle than getting a genius reservation in - rather than getting boomeranged around indian telephone companies for them to run you through troubleshoots you've already ran.
Also: Stop using 'iTV' - it will definitely not be called this.
Also: Stop using 'iTV' - it will definitely not be called this.
With their crappy lifespans, power consumption, weight and other issue. Not saying you are not right though
The main thing about these, they would have to be upgradable. Would have to be a plug in Apple TV dongle type thing. If only so Apple have a upgrade path. TV's have a much londer life cycle than computer and Phones etc.
My LED has a very wide viewing angle with great blacks. I compared it to good plasmas in store and there was hardly a difference but some of the cheaper LED/LCD models were quite bad.
ITV is already a thing. http://www.itv.com The owner of one of the most watched show in the world, apparently. And definitely the oldest soap.
My Bravia has Gorilla Glass and I have no idea why! I guess if you throw a Wii remote at it it won't smash.
My Bravia has Gorilla Glass and I have no idea why! I guess if you throw a Wii remote at it it won't smash.
Apple is the only company that has the ability to enter low margin markets and be successful. They can demand a premium on hardware because of their software and aesthetic. I think SJ or Tim once said that Apple was primarily a software company. That strategy failed with personal computers, but obviously worked pretty well with phones. Google took the Microsoft approach of distributing just the software (Android) to manufacturers. As seamlessness and ecosystem become more and more important, Apple will always have an advantage. So long as they don't make mistakes, which is why everyone including fans are so critical of them. The gold iphone raises some red flags
I work at a post house and besides our high end OLED Sony for our top Color Correct suite, our main engineer has been buying LG displays...which was some of the best LEDs out there.
Interesting because Apple is working supposedly with LG on the TV.
Also, not sure if you all read this about OLEDs and Tim Cooks view
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...hange and the rest will scramble to catch up.
Last edited:
OLED, I will agree with you there. They have great color and black level accuracy. However, the LG LEDs still do not come close to the black levels or viewing angles of the the old Pioneer Kuros of 3 to 5 years ago, or close to the top Panasonic Plasmas. Unless Apple goes with OLED, LED will not impress.
----------
You can't compare while watching in a store. First of all, LED's are in torch mode. Secondly, plasmas will looked washed out under bright store lights. Now if the room you watch tv is bright, then LED is the way to go. But if you watch movies in the dark, plasma will amaze you, while LED is just meh. Third, a properly calibrated good plasma (done by someone trained and qualified) will look better than a calibrated LED TV. LED's right now, still do not have the quality black levels of plasma, and viewing angles, well, do not even come close. Move side to side and you will see the colors wash out on LED's while that does not occur with plasma.
I wonder what Steve Jobs' big discovery was that would make this work. I remember hearing that he cracked it...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not at the bit-rate iTunes would stream it at!
But seriously, to make 4K TV take off you need lots of content, just like there was with HDTV. Over a fairly short period of time the broadcast networks converted all their scripted programming, all their sports, and eventually all the news, soaps, talk shows, etc.
While the overall point is correct, the part I highlighted by bolding is not true. The HD standards reached approval way back in 1986. I don't think we had broad HD adoption on all 4 networks until about 2004 or so: 18 years later. The networks affiliates were basically forced into the change with many waiting as long as they could without losing the free channel of spectrum they were given for making the transition. They hoped their broadcast equipment costs would come down. Some thought they could apply for extensions forever. Some cried that the costs would bankrupt them. Both Satt & Cable also threw up lots of resistance and they had a somewhat easier path to adopting it. Ultimately, the Gov had to give away rebates on converter boxes as part of a final push (and still there's some channels that are not HD yet). And on and on. I would describe the transition as painfully slow with a lot of kicking & screaming resistance.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think a broadcast 4K standard has been established yet, so we're not even to the 1986 equivalent on 4K yet. I can only imagine the backlash and pain if the Gov decided to push for another mandated shift encouraging 4K this soon after the last one.
Will we get to 4K via broadcast? Maybe-to-probably. But if I was placing bets, I'd bet on about 2025 or later (and that might be aggressive considering the approx. 18 years involved in the last one). Just like with HD, the TVs did come first on the national stage. A few local broadcast affiliates went early (I think a few- like one in Raleigh, NC- were broadcasting in the late 90's). It then took a long time for everyone's locals to adopt HD (and has everyone's locals adopted HD even in mid-2013?).
4K probably needs another round of discs for broad distribution of content. I don't know if iTunes and bandwidth could stream it. Maybe h.265 finalization would help with the latter? There's also the "can I see the difference question" which was probably easy going from SD to HD on living-room-sized televisions. Going from 1080p to 4K on television-sized screens may be much more of a challenge, especially for smaller screens around the house. Again, I'd bet on 2025 or later... at best.
Last edited:
To clarify, I mean a short period of time once they got started and Im referring to conversion of programming, not of over the air facilities at the local level.
First HD Super Bowl - 2000. Frasier, which was one of the last scripted shows to transition, switched midway through its penultimate season, in 2002.
Obviously there were lots of places you couldnt actually GET HD programming, but if you were lucky enough to live somewhere you could, there was a fair bit available.
First HD Super Bowl - 2000. Frasier, which was one of the last scripted shows to transition, switched midway through its penultimate season, in 2002.
Obviously there were lots of places you couldnt actually GET HD programming, but if you were lucky enough to live somewhere you could, there was a fair bit available.
*sigh* I really wish MacRumors would put a standard disclaimer explaining this in every Apple Television article that uses the term 'iTV', it's way past annoying now.
Regardless, I am not very confident Apple will make a TV that is particularly impressive without it being stupidly expensive. A new Thunderbolt display that doubles as a TV would make more sense, to go along with the new Mac Pro.
But why does Apple need to produce its own giant TV screen to improve the user experience?
A screen is a screen, it just shows whatever the HDMI or WiFi signal is sending. The logic and software is mainly in the attached boxes (game consoles, TiVo, AppleTV...) and the cloud.
Picture quality is already very good today, so is TV design. For example, movie buffs not satisfied with LCD can still get top-of line Plasmas from Panasonic. Attaching a box is easy, plug in HDMI cable, done.
Where is the added value of the TV set (flat screen part) for Apple and consumers?
I see why Apple can and should improve its AppleTV box in the future, but why produce a screen?
PS: There is a reason why Apple stand-alone monitors never have been big sellers and probably never will be.
Last edited:
I absolutely agree.In fact I am hoping that They will offer a "screenless"version that gives all the same features without replacing a perfectly satisfactory TV.I'm simply not in the market for a new display and don't expect that to change for years.In computers they offer both iMacs and Mac Minis,I hope they do something similar with TVs.Seems the potential for sales would be exponentially larger for such a device.Not only for people like me,but also those who want/need a size display that Apple won't be offering.
Time will tell.