Apple Television Set Prototypes Reportedly 'In the Works'

[marcusj0015]

Your syntax perplexes me. What are you saying?

"...it would work in the same way as the iMac and Mac Mini do, i.e bring your own screen and keyboard."
What? The iMac COMES WITH a keyboard and screen! So the "iMac and Mac Mini" do NOT work that way!

"Apple TV puck, bring your own TV and an actual Apple TV."
Again, What?? Why would you bring your own TV AND an Apple Television?

all of you are clearly thinking in a strange box. it wouldn't use a damn keyboard, wtf?

----------

I'll bet that the Apple TV looks exactly like a bigger Apple Cinema Display.

 

[diazj3]

I recently watched AllThingsD 2010, where Mr. Jobs gives a long very interesting interview, great to watch and reflect on retrospective on what he said, how he said it, etc - not because of him personally, but of the trends that were emerging then....

And during the Q&A, someone asked about this exactly. His response was more in the lines of the TV business depends more on the set-top boxes and how they access content, rather than the TV screen itself... so I guess that's where the real emphasis will be if Apple pursues this line of business - which in the end they already are.

 

[jettredmont]

It is because all the cable companies/dish providers are in bed with the government. It is a mess.

Where by "in bed with the government" you mean "a natural monopoly which has been almost completely deregulated because they fund election campaigns with their ill-gotten gains", of course.

 

[Yr Blues]

27 inch & 50+ inch

some people, like me, want small tvs for apartments/dorms.

include a wallmount please

 

[marcusj0015]

27 inch & 50+ inch

some people, like me, want small tvs for apartments/dorms.

include a wallmount please

I have a feeling that they would just upgrade the Apple Cinema Display with the proper guts, for the small size.

----------

Where by "in bed with the government" you mean "a natural monopoly which has been almost completely deregulated because they fund election campaigns with their ill-gotten gains", of course.

Nope, I think he's referring to cable companies making monopolictic agreements with cities and counties.

 

[thatsmyfish]

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)

Tiptopp, I routinely do everything on your dream list, today, with relatively I expensively third party devices. If Apple buys them out of refines their own interface there is no reason why they cannot do this perfectly.

 

[Yr Blues]

I have a feeling that they would just upgrade the Apple Cinema Display with the proper guts, for the small size.

----------



Nope, I think he's referring to cable companies making monopolictic agreements with cities and counties.

And those start at $999. So, maybe $1099. for a TV version, since they'll just squish in the apple TV puck into the display.

but perhaps they'll do like Amazon and sell them for less if you buy a subscription.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

It would be very cool if Apple can also design a sleek AV receiver to go with their TV set. I can only imagine their design would just put what we've been used to in a traditional AV receiver to shame. A fraction of the size, lower power consumption, and that signature Johnny Ives Apple look .

There's a reason (good) receivers are big and heavy. A lighter amp/receiver doesn't do it any favors and if you are buying one purely because of it's small size then you may as well just use your TV speakers.

 

[iheartiphone4]

I think it would be a great business model if you could just buy individual channels. I mean, there's only a handful of channels I like, why must the consumer be forced to buy all of the garbage channels.

I completely agree! Plus I think that Apple would be working on an LED TV not LCD TV.

----------

There's a reason (good) receivers are big and heavy. A lighter amp/receiver doesn't do it any favors and if you are buying one purely because of it's small size then you may as well just use your TV speakers.

I think the TV will use wi fi. Not the what traditional TVs use.

 

[jettredmont]

I think it is. It's about connectivity. A TV doesn't exist on its own; it's just a dumb monitor. You need to connect things to it, whether a simple antenna or a satellite system. I think that's where Apple could bring innovation: streamlining the experience of using a TV.

So, you believe that the Apple TV Set will include 9.1 surround sound to compete with Denon et al?

Apple might offer a TV with a good sound system. But, I seriously doubt that people who CURRENTLY are buying home theater systems for surround sound et al would be happy with Apple's speakers mounted at the bottom of the TV set to bounce off the table or whatever. They will want their Denon system to take over there and feed their 15 speaker system.

And, if they want that, then the Apple TV Set's remote control, no matter how intuitive and spiffy, won't automatically control their Home Theater system. Issues still exist.

You can imagine scenarios (ex, IR repeater system) where the Apple TV Set could control that home theater system. But then, in those same scenarios the Apple TV STB standalone could also control the home theater system AND the TV set. I'm not so positive that an Apple TV Set makes sense in a world where the control simplicity can be bought from Logitech with a Harmony remote (seriously; if you are constantly asked by people to "fix" their system where the TV is set to the wrong input or whatever, just buy them a Harmony and be done with it!)

 

[marcusj0015]

IDK about 9.1 surround, but i completely expect 7.1 with a slot loading blu-ray drive

 

[jettredmont]

Wireless surround sound speakers... no more pesky wires.

He said "good" sound ...

 

[Icaras]

There's a reason (good) receivers are big and heavy. A lighter amp/receiver doesn't do it any favors and if you are buying one purely because of it's small size then you may as well just use your TV speakers.

With all due respect, I disagree and I think you are underestimating Apple's engineering.

One doesn't have to look further than their long history of products that completely changed the designs of products that we were used to in terms of size: the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Mac Mini, and the Macbook Air all showed what can be done to shrink those product classes in size.

I wouldn't expect top of the line, brute power in a proposed integrated AV receiver, but a decent compromise. I'm confident that if Apple wanted to, they could pull this off where no others couldn't. I'm still surprised our current 27" ACD houses a decent 2.1 sound system. Yes, it's a 1 inch sub, but its still in there and to boot, it's still the thinnest 27" display on the market. I don't even think Dell's 27" has a built in sound system at all and is much thicker. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[marcusj0015]

That's true high quality sound chips aren't very big. their just expensive.

 

[Aeolius]

anyone else remember Apple's patent for Stereoscopic Displays ?

 

[marcusj0015]

anyone else remember Apple's patent for Stereoscopic Displays ?

4 years ago? holy damn.

i really hope they do use 3D though. glasses free.

 

[Cuthbert]

The problem here is not the TV itself. It is the product range.

In the 90's Apple sold a million products and Jobs cut them down to 4 main categories. And it worked.

Fast forward to today and we have:
iPods, iPads, iPhones, iMacs, Mac Minis, Mac Pros, MBPs, MBA's etc etc.

Cutting the categories down was the right thing to do *at the time*. Apple has more products now, but they are all well developed. It's not like they are making a bunch of crap and need to narrow their focus as they did previously.

They are on top in the tech industry. The way to stay on top is to continue to innovate faster than your competition. A TV would be a perfect way to do that.

 

[Aeolius]

4 years ago?

9 years, if you dig further: Apple Stereoscopic Displays (2002)

 

[perealb]

"Siri, change to Discovery Channel"
"Siri, find me a sci-fi movie made in 2011"
"Siri, set to record all new episodes of Family Guy"
"Siri, what are the best rated tv shows at the moment? (siri lists) Please, record XXXXX"
"Siri, play the movie Horrible Bosses"
...

 

[bearcatrp]

Sony talked about doing something similar years ago. Would only show Sony subscribed content. Big uproar. All the networks were bitching about it. Sony dropped it. Now apple wants to do something similar. Be interesting if the networks bitch about this too.
No way would I buy into a closed system. I'll pass and watch what I want, not what apple says I can. What a joke!

 

[Gasu E.]

Many of the kids on this forum probably don't remember the old way of surfing channels where you flip through channels at high speed and watch each channel for about 0.2 seconds along the way and then flip back if you see something you like.

These days with all the goodness of digital TV, you cannot do that anymore. It's really a drag now, you have to know what you want to watch first, and then find it on a blue screen, and put up with endless scrolling, and TV shouldn't have to be that way. (Granted, the PVR is awesome though, but still....)

In the old days you flip on the boob tube and start flicking through channels until you saw something you liked. The process of flipping through is something I miss a lot.

These days, you click and wait 1.5 long seconds for the stupid channel to tune in on digital, and then it's still going to be a repeat of the same show that was on 12 hours ago.

What you really want is a TV with a click wheel.

 

[diamond.g]

With all due respect, I disagree and I think you are underestimating Apple's engineering.

One doesn't have to look further than their long history of products that completely changed the designs of products that we were used to in terms of size: the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Mac Mini, and the Macbook Air all showed what can be done to shrink those product classes in size.

I wouldn't expect top of the line, brute power in a proposed integrated AV receiver, but a decent compromise. I'm confident that if Apple wanted to, they could pull this off where no others couldn't. I'm still surprised our current 27" ACD houses a decent 2.1 sound system. Yes, it's a 1 inch sub, but its still in there and to boot, it's still the thinnest 27" display on the market. I don't even think Dell's 27" has a built in sound system at all and is much thicker. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I would be impressed if Apple could do a AV Receiver and still have it be smaller than say BOSE and actually sound good in the process.

 

[AidenShaw]

If this is true and that is a big IF, you wouldn't see Apple just make a plain 'ol TV set with a built in TV. I think you would see a TV/computer hybrid. Siri enabled, FaceTime enable, iCloud capable TV. Imagine being able to use and navigate your TV WITHOUT A REMOTE! Who knows, maybe they team up with Microsoft to offer built in Kinetic features! (Now I'm really pushing it, lol)

Who knows what it'll be, but if Apple does it, you can be sure as hell it won't JUST be a TV. And IF it ends up being $1800, it will absolutely be a justifiable $1800 bucks.

None of this requires that Apple sell a "TV set" - that is, a home entertainment device with a screen.

Kinect, after all, is just a couple USB cameras and motion sensors in a little box that you place under or over your TV.

This sounds like a bad idea. Can you imagine how expensive a 50inch Apple branded TV would be? Yearly updates? I mean there is no way people could afford it.

Rather Apple update there iOS Powered Apple TV box.

Unless Apple can totally change TV I think they should stay with a box.

You get it. No point in Apple selling a full range of flat panel displays.

So, 1700$ for "simplicity" where "simplicity" means one less HDMI cable ?

How "simple" is a TV set to integrate to a home A/V system that requires the same HDMI connection (whether is comes from the set top box or the TV) ? Sounds like it's the same thing to me.

And wouldn't it be simpler to let customers just change a set top box every XX years than switch the whole TV set ?

Just asking questions here, so that people reflect on what an AppleTV, an actual set, means. Apple wouldn't do this if it was just a monitor with a set top box integrated in it.

You get it too. My 52" XBR has four cables:

• power (I guess that this is non-negotiable....)
• Cat6 (so that it can automatically install firmware updates)
• one HDMI (to the AV cross-bar switch)
• OTA (for local free, very high bandwidth HD)

All the other HDMI links (TiVo, cable STB, BD, Windows Media Center,...) connect to the AV cross-bar switch.

So, you'll just throw out the 7.1 sound system, the A/V receiver, and the BD player/DVD player right out ? Those inputs and outputs are not there to be complex, they are there for versatility. Are you really ready to give up that versatility so you don't have to run 1 HDMI cable between an AppleTV set top box and your set ?

You get it, if I had an Apple TV it would be a peripheral connected to the AV cross-bar switch - no way would I want it in the screen.

One issue I've seen crop up here.

I'm not replacing my TV every year. Like people do iPads/iPhones. I think a 5 year upgrade cycle will be nice. I'm sure Apple has thought abut this.

My 52" XBR is four years old, and I still consider it to be my "new" TV. I haven't seen any significant improvements in those four years to make me want to consider a new screen. (My XBR is 120Hz - 240Hz would be nicer, but not a huge improvement. 3D - I've watched demos in stores, and it doesn't do anything for me. LED with local dimming would be nice, but my CCFL is quite fine (my home theatre has a 40 sq ft skylight, so plasma is not an option even if I didn't care about the electric bill). When we bought, local dimming LED was very new - and my husband and I chose the $3K CCFL over the $7K LED, rationalizing that it would be easier to decide to send the $3K system to the toxic waste dump when something truly better came along.)

Even with a DINK Silicon Valley income - 5 years is far, far too frequent an upgrade timetable.

I think there are too many variables in the TV market for Apple to enter into it. For one thing you have both Plasma and LCD type displays both of which have there own strengths and weaknesses and one type is not right for everyone (plasma is better in dark rooms where LCD is better in rooms that have lots of windows). There is also the size factor with TVs ranging from around 20inch to about 65inch for the mainstream market with even bigger TVs in the high end market. As for cable over the internet, with more and more ISPs putting bandwidth caps on there services this could very quickly become more expensive than the current price people are paying for ip/cable/sat TV. Apple would be better off by selling the technology of the Apple TV to the TV makers as long as they approved every TV that carried it.

You get part of it. The "Apple TV" needs to remain a separate box, not integrated. The development cycle for iToys is much faster than the display development cycle. Keep the AppleTV model, so that a small peripheral can be replaced when something new and better comes along.

Wait. This is about TVs, not home theater.

Where is the boundary between "TVs" and "home theatre" systems?

You don't need to have a dedicated windowless room with a tiered floor to have a home theatre. My home theatre is one side of the great room in my suburban home. Big screen, 6.1 sound - it's really what "TVs" are today.

We don't know what it is yet, but what I would like for the rumored price is:

1. 2560 x 1600 resolution.
2. Model sizes of 46", 52" and 60+". Better yet if a 70" display could be made.
3. Color gamut of the Apple Cinema Display (ACD).
4. Easy to color calibrate like the ACD.
5. Integrated Apple TV.
6. Thunderbolt, mini-Display Port, HDMI, and 1-set of analog inputs.
7. Aesthetically similar in design to the Apple Thunderbolt Display.

Not sure of the point of "higher than 1080p but less than 2K or 4K resolution" would be.

Also see no point in TBolt or mDP - HDMI is the video standard. Anything other than an HDMI-based system would be silly.

As far as sizes and styling - exactly why Apple should not produce a flat panel TV. They'll never satisfy a majority of Americans, and when you consider worldwide standards it's nearly hopeless.

Yellow is the new white.

It's gonna be an Apple trademark.

LOL

If Apple were to make a TV, the difference would be how you get your content. I have no doubt that Apple has been working on a TV for a while, it just makes sense in their eco-system. It would have things like Siri, Facetime chatting, games, access to your music, photos and videos and iDevices as remotes for starters.

All things that are in IOS, and all things that argue for an external AppleTV box - not an Apple-branded flat panel.

I don't see myself in the market for this. Good TVs are pretty cheap, and I'm only interested in a dummy display.

+1 My XBR has 8 inputs, but only the OTA and one HDMI input (from the AV cross-bar switch) are connected. The rest are a waste, and the audio function in the screen are completely wasted because all of the components sent the 7.1 digital signals to the AV cross-bar switch.

So a TV like a big thin light ipad that can either sit on a stand or hang like a painting, utilize its own multiple wifi networks simultaneously to enable:

ATV, Airplay, Siri, Gamecenter, FaceTime, Screensharing, iTunes/Cloud, perhaps some nice wireless surround panels...

That'd be a fine product as it is, and that's all just done with their existing technologies. If there was a breakthrough worth SJ getting excited about on his deathbed, then I look forward to seeing what it is.

All doable with an AppleTV external box, with Apple getting into the big-screen display market.

I'll agree that's what most people want to do, but not how it works in my house or any of my friend's or neighbor's houses.

Sure, the geeks in each houselhold totally understand the cable/Tivo/ATV1/ATV2/Roku/Stereo set up, and the advantage each box provides, but not our spouses.

"honey, I can't get the TV to show anything..." (heard that refrain again just yesterday).

Logitech Harmony - 'nuff said.

Sadly, Apple still hasn't removed the grip from the carriers (like we were all hoping they would do with the original iPhone).

Don't burst *LTD*'s bubble....

I think it is. It's about connectivity. A TV doesn't exist on its own; it's just a dumb monitor. You need to connect things to it, whether a simple antenna or a satellite system. I think that's where Apple could bring innovation: streamlining the experience of using a TV.

And whatever you connect to the TV will probably have a number of inputs.

OK. Then I'm not sure why you commented on my original post rather than someone who thinks anything with an Apple logo stamped on it is an ordained best-seller.

Because some people are more interested in the logo rather than the performance or value of the product?

At a sub $1K price though and with the proper software they would sell millions. It would make it a more simple solution for people that eliminated all of the wires associated with all of the current peripherals surrounding our TV's.

Even cooler would be if they made a projector. That could be done cheaply while still giving the (super) bigscreen feel. Attach speakers and you can have a 60" to 300" screen that can be hidden when not in use.

Why the headache of different styles, sizes, technologies - when the external box is really where the value is?

There's a big difference, Apple already has a product that is capable of all those things. The Apple TV does everything except display the pixels, which you need a dumb display panel for. Adding this now that we're used to getting all the functionality for our existing "dumb display panel" through a cheap little box would only add to the price and not to the value. It's all in the software, and we already have that.

You really get it. AppleTV doesn't need to display pixels, it only needs to direct content to the pixel display.

I like both of those ideas. i hope they have GOOD surround sound too. ugh, i'm gettin my hopes up again lol

The Apple that pushed 128 Kbps as "CD quality"? Yes, if you believe that your hopes are too high.

Wireless surround sound speakers... no more pesky wires.

All I can see in this are the kilotons of toxic waste generated by dead batteries in wireless speakers....

I'll bet that the Apple TV looks exactly like a bigger Apple Cinema Display.

No sale then - no brushed aluminum in my house. We recently spent $30K to have brushed aluminum windows and doors in our home replace by walnut-colored anodized aluminum fixtures.

 

[elistan]

I see no reason for Apple to produce a unit that integrates both the display and the AppleTV functionality. Just make the AppleTV support 1080p over and HDMI connection and they're golden. Let the Mitsubishis, Sonys and the like handle the display IMO.


I've had experience with three different "modern" style set-top-boxes.

First, a DirecTV box integrated with TiVo. (Hughes HDVR2.) Good interface, good performance, good reliability. Too bad it was standard-def only.

Second, our first foray into HD - AT&T UVerse. The STB hardware was by Motorola, the software from Microsoft IIRC. Horrible, horrible, horrible user experience. Bad interface layout, atrocious performance (hit a button, wait five seconds with no response, hit the button again, two seconds later BOTH commands are executed,) poor reliability (sometimes wouldn't record shows, and would randomly reboot itself.) Before our 30-day trial period, we cancelled.

Third, our current setup, DirecTV's HD DVR box. I'm not familiar with any of the details of who makes/programs it. It's better than the UVerse we had, but not nearly as good at the TiVo.

I was hopeful when I heard DirecTV and TiVo were trying to work on another integrated unit, this time for HD. But that seems to have stalled out? I was also hopeful at one point, for no particular reason, that Apple would leverage their relationship with AT&T regarding the iPhone into a partnership that would make the AppleTV the STB for the UVerse service. Alas, no dice.

In the meantime, DirecTV is costing us about $1200 per year, and through iTunes the shows we watch the most would total up to about $550 per year. So we're thinking about ditching DirecTV and going with an AppleTV.

 

[khollister]

The problem with this is that all of the issues with TV usage is either content driven or could be completely implemented in a set top box like a AppleTV 3 or a Mini with no-compromise HTPC software. Bundling it with the TV display (the most expensive part) just cuts down the market. Unlike a computer (where there is no easy, simple way to decouple HW and the OS SW), A TV display is easily interfaced to a HTPC/STB via a single HDMI cable.

Siri, better content, simpler DVR interfaces, etc can all be implemented without being integrated into the actual TV display.