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 Television Set Not Expected Until 2015 or Later, But A7 Apple TV Could Come in 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please chaps get me right - i'm totally AppTV (puck) fan , but ... it is OBSOLETE at the very mo .
All we need - Mac Micro( 'Cheap' MacMini version) - price has to be around somewhat matching the needs - gaming , browser, skype - etc.. name the price for all that ( 99 sounds ridiculous )
So Apple - put a new - Alum puck on the table)
All we need - Mac Micro( 'Cheap' MacMini version) - price has to be around somewhat matching the needs - gaming , browser, skype - etc.. name the price for all that ( 99 sounds ridiculous )
So Apple - put a new - Alum puck on the table)
Yep. I've been saying this for years! I think Apple is afraid of hurting sales of more profitable devices.
Ok, I agree, not "cheap". I really meant "reasonable". For example, if Apple can demonstrate that say, Cartoon Network can charge a flat fee for unlimited streaming of all programming, I'd gladly pay it. (The above amount is arbitrary). My point is, I'd rather pay $50 a month for 5 channels than $130 for 300, out of which I watch only 5 or 6. Each channel could double-dip on the revenue, the subscription and the ads and at that price I'd still do it, as long as all content was delivered on any device.
I believe that Steve could've demonstrated and pushed for something like this. What we need is revolution, just like what happened with the music industry. You don't think the record companies fought tooth and nail to keep the status quo back then?
However I see your point, and I'm sure the TV industry is hell bent on not letting that happen again. So we have to suffer through this BS.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Of course, we all want a big discount, let Apple get theirs right off the top and somehow keep the other players cranking out the stuff we want. But what would actually work is if we're all paying $130 now, add Apple's 30% on top of that, juice up the number even more so they other players have a reason to embrace a change to a new model, and be sure that everyone else in the current chain makes more money- not less. In other words, we all getting to cut our cost to $50 doesn't work. We're the source of the current cash flows. What all of the other players need to see from Apple is how THEY are all going to make more money in a new model, not less… even with Apple taking whatever cut they'll want.
It's one of the reasons this can't go anywhere. The source of the money thinks they are going to get some huge savings. That would be a huge bite out of the existing machine (lots of people lose their jobs, lots of programs getting cut or canceled, lots of channels die, etc). Apple wants to take a big bite out of revenues too (more shows get cut, more channels or programs die, etc). If you are the rest of the players, why do you want to do it? Especially since the player most likely to feel the greatest (revenue) pain completely controls the (broadband) pipes through which Apple's replacement must flow?
TV business is very different and exceedingly more complex in terms content creation, distribution and monetization than the music industry. And, to be honest, looking around at all the streaming options (from Netflix and Hulu to streaming apps from the CW network and professional sports) the TV industry is adopting much faster and with much less gnashing of teeth than the music industry did.
FFS There will not be an Apple TV set. There is no money in it for Apple.
The puck is what we're going to get. With perhaps more content deals available.
The puck is what we're going to get. With perhaps more content deals available.
I am on record not wanting Apple to bring a TV to market unless it is just a high quality display similar to what we have today. Honestly, I don't see the need for the all-in-one be everything TV. I am a firm believer in modular functionality. An all encompassing TV is just a recipe for disappointment. As we have it today, if one component malfunctions it's not a complete show stopper. An unapologetic, seamless, iTunes driven, blah blah blah... ff one part of that malfunctions there will be apologies.
TV's should just be a display. imo.
left field: I keep seeing people mention clunky cable boxes. Who makes these? My cable box is fairly compact and far from clunky.
I agree with you; this is not something I would want either. Heck, my TV doesn't even have speakers or a tuner!
But I make a distinction between what I want and what might sell in sufficient numbers to others. I don't like integrated computers such as the iMac for the same reasons as I wouldn't want an integrated TV, but Apple seems to make a fair amount of money selling iMacs to other people.
Noooooo....
Apple pushed it back AGAIN ..... They only doing this cos they have issues with striking deals with network, or other tech issues...
(I just wanna know, whats the source on this, cos he's doin' a terrible job).
I don't mind an A7 in an iPhone where its USEFUL.
But in an Apple TV ?...
Personally, the Much awaited Apple Television is way over-due, and called for first, than a "surprisingly updated Apple TV with M7" .
I dunno why Apple can't bring this puppy the table....
Ok, so they bring out their own Television, but its not like its not gonna be updated as content/networks come on-board..
After all, that's what Apple is already doing currently with the 3rd-gen... At least consumers/businesses that can afford it will be happy they have it. Rather than keep setting it back and saying "It will come eventually"
Apple pushed it back AGAIN ..... They only doing this cos they have issues with striking deals with network, or other tech issues...
(I just wanna know, whats the source on this, cos he's doin' a terrible job).
I don't mind an A7 in an iPhone where its USEFUL.
But in an Apple TV ?...
Personally, the Much awaited Apple Television is way over-due, and called for first, than a "surprisingly updated Apple TV with M7" .
I dunno why Apple can't bring this puppy the table....
Ok, so they bring out their own Television, but its not like its not gonna be updated as content/networks come on-board..
After all, that's what Apple is already doing currently with the 3rd-gen... At least consumers/businesses that can afford it will be happy they have it. Rather than keep setting it back and saying "It will come eventually"
Last edited:
This sounds like probably part of an bigger internal upgrade. With h.265 now approved, the hardware could be upgraded to support this. I think h.265 supports 4K, and an A7 would help with this. The only device I know of that supports 4K is that $700 thing Sony has that looks like a stack of CDs. So I think Apple knows the 4K market is still very new and waiting for a dominant party. Samsung and Sony did that pretty well in the BD/HD-DVD fight.
Also, any upgrade really needs to support DTS-HD. Yeah, Dolby Digital isn't bad. But pop in Jurassic Park on BD and it's that much better. More power could also be used to offer iTunes Extras via Apple TV. You get there and you're that much closer to replacing optical discs for movies. Right now it's pretty darn good, especially when I was watching Man of Steel at 12:03 a.m.
I keep hoping for an ATV set, but I think Apple is waiting to get everything right. 4K is still kind of expensive, and I would assume Apple would put 4K resolution on all TV sets. If it really wants to challenge other TV makers, it would need models around 32 or 40 inches because of how many people buy those. I have a 5-year-old 32" TV in my bedroom and a 2-year-old 55" LED TV in my den. Guess which one I'm upgrading first.
Also, any upgrade really needs to support DTS-HD. Yeah, Dolby Digital isn't bad. But pop in Jurassic Park on BD and it's that much better. More power could also be used to offer iTunes Extras via Apple TV. You get there and you're that much closer to replacing optical discs for movies. Right now it's pretty darn good, especially when I was watching Man of Steel at 12:03 a.m.
I keep hoping for an ATV set, but I think Apple is waiting to get everything right. 4K is still kind of expensive, and I would assume Apple would put 4K resolution on all TV sets. If it really wants to challenge other TV makers, it would need models around 32 or 40 inches because of how many people buy those. I have a 5-year-old 32" TV in my bedroom and a 2-year-old 55" LED TV in my den. Guess which one I'm upgrading first.
I've been thinking about this, I was wondering if a 4k 60" touchscreen TV is on the cards? Literally 0.7cm think... A massive iPad on your wall..
There are no hardware H.265 decoders. It's going to take a lot more time to qualify IC design for that.
I think some Snapdragons have demo'd H.265 decode in software. A7 can certainly stand toe to toe with Snapdragon, and the AppleTV doesn't have to be concerned with battery optimized power consumption. So that is feasible.
This.
4k TV prices are falling quickly. 4k picture quality is appreciably better than 1080p. H.265 gives 4k within HDTV bandwidth now. Blu-ray 4k is possible ... but not yet. The A7 should be able to decode H.265 in software. Hardware decoders will come later, likely integrated into an A-series chip.
Apple could therefore roll out an ATV with 4k soon. They would be first to market with a 4k video service (of any kind) and this might be the final nail in the Blu-ray coffin. If anything, the current lack of hardware decoders puts the competition at real (temporary) disadvantage. Those of us on 1080p with the new ATV would just get served a 1080p file compressed with H.265, cutting Apple's bandwidth cost (i.e. increasing the iTMS profit margin).
Sorry for getting the hardware/software stuff mixed up. I didn't even know they were two different things!
I think Apple is in a mode to get the 64-bit A7 into just about everything using the A-series chips so it can make use of that extra power. It also means less development change between desktop and these A7-powered devices, and even less between the varying iOS devices.
It's still a little early for a full-fledged TV that works like it "should" work to come out at an affordable price. Don't forget that the iPad starting at $499 shocked the world by about $500. Obviously every tech journalist has forgotten that about four years later, but I digress.
4K just seems like where Apple would go. Nobody would be all that wowed by a 1080p TV. I mean they're great, but ooh, something that has existed for about seven years at decent prices.
Any 4K device with video playback is going to require storage. Apple certainly won't try to sell any optical disks. I'm doubtful Apple would involve hard drives anywhere, but it could for the right purpose -- see Time Capsules. I don't think most people are going to have the bandwidth to stream 4K unless it has been reduced to crappy quality, so a TV set with built-in Apple TV features needs flash storage. I would guess at least 128GB would be required to tout 4K video, and that much is still costly. But as all computers move to flash, it's been getting cheaper. I mean you can buy a 1TB SSD for $600. A couple of years ago $600 might've gotten you 128GB.
I'm also willing to bet Apple wants to change the way content is provided by becoming a provider like DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, etc. People subscribe with their handy Apple IDs to various channel packages and watch it all through the Internet. A la carte channels are a reality, and Apple just freaking wins. But I'm sure there are massive contracts involved with the providers and producers right now, so that could be the Mount Everest of innovation.
I would personally be fine with focusing on a box that does all of this. I just wish I could get the $200 or so extra back I spent on the Samsung "Smart" TV as opposed to a dumb one. The apps are either worthless or available on every Apple TV, Blu-ray player and game console sold. Man, what a waste.
The next model NEEDS TO HAVE AN APP/CHANNEL STORE. It is ridiculous that Apple has taken so long for this.
Other than that, I doubt 4K is coming yet.
As for the Apple Television Set, to quote Jobs:
"The TV is always going to lose because there's no go to market strategy."
Other than that, I doubt 4K is coming yet.
As for the Apple Television Set, to quote Jobs:
"The TV is always going to lose because there's no go to market strategy."
Good point. Agreed. While I still think the ala carte model would be nice, I don't think it'll happen. The TV industry is adopting content delivery variety at a fast pace as it is, like how I can stream CN or HBO to my iPads as long as I have a cable subscription.
This, then, makes an Apple TV set pointless. I just don't see it.
Perhaps a gigantic 4k tv that is really a(n) (i)Mac inside (but with a new interface) would be cool?
You wouldn't say so if the next ATV will have full iOS which requires a lot more processing power to run games, Siri or others mysterious things that Apple will include. My bet is that the next ATV won't be having the same basic features as the current ATV3.
Just can't help but think it may be too little too late for Apple. They started out fine with their first two Apple TV streamers as it gave us a hobby to play around with. Even though they were locked down being able to jailbreak and install XBMC made it a non issue.
Now we see Roku pretty much dominating the streamer market, because rather than restricting their device they opened it up to channel developers. With over a 1000 channels available, and more released almost every day they are quickly becoming the industry standard when it comes to media streamers. Check out this impressive list and compare it to what is available for Apple TV.
So even if we could buy an Apple Television with a built in ATV streamer at what will be undoubtedly be a hefty price, why would we want to limit ourselves. As quickly as technology changes this is just one more piece that may quickly become obsolete while the TV portion continues to function fine. Remember when TVs had stereos and record players built in? That fell out of favor quickly.
It seems like a step backwards and in my humble opinion Apple would be better off investing in shrinking the AppleTV the way Roku did so it could be the size of a USB stick and plug directly into a HDMI port. Out of site and easily upgradable. There is no question Apple hardware and UI are great, just open up the Apple TV to developers already and start competing on content.
Now we see Roku pretty much dominating the streamer market, because rather than restricting their device they opened it up to channel developers. With over a 1000 channels available, and more released almost every day they are quickly becoming the industry standard when it comes to media streamers. Check out this impressive list and compare it to what is available for Apple TV.
So even if we could buy an Apple Television with a built in ATV streamer at what will be undoubtedly be a hefty price, why would we want to limit ourselves. As quickly as technology changes this is just one more piece that may quickly become obsolete while the TV portion continues to function fine. Remember when TVs had stereos and record players built in? That fell out of favor quickly.
It seems like a step backwards and in my humble opinion Apple would be better off investing in shrinking the AppleTV the way Roku did so it could be the size of a USB stick and plug directly into a HDMI port. Out of site and easily upgradable. There is no question Apple hardware and UI are great, just open up the Apple TV to developers already and start competing on content.
I bet this scenario gives many Sony and Microsoft executives nightmares.
I'm all for it though. Moving Apple TV toward iOS support is the most logical move.
----------
I don't want a cable subscription. Don't want it, don't need it. Forcing the consumer to have one with "cordless" delivery is a lateral move at best and inevitably DOA as more and more people cut the cord.
All my TV comes via netflix or iTunes where I watch exactly what I want to watch and is a fraction of the cost of a cable subscription.
