Even at $1299 I don't see Apple going this low considering they sell a 27" at $1000. If they offered the same quality and options as the 27" display (usb, thunderbolt, hdmi, audio, ethernet, wifi) I would expect 2560x1440 (1440P) resolution. This TV would be brand new to a brand new market of 1440P and I would expect something like this to run $2000+ for a 50".
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 Prototypes Reportedly 'In the Works'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
After reading the whole thread, only saw one other person mention this:
Does anyone else remember the story a little while back about intel playing around with doing on board video at 4096p resolution?
Could this be part of what is causing the price to be as high as it is being bandied about?
I could see a low powered proc powering the display and its functions if it is this one.
Does anyone else remember the story a little while back about intel playing around with doing on board video at 4096p resolution?
Could this be part of what is causing the price to be as high as it is being bandied about?
I could see a low powered proc powering the display and its functions if it is this one.
An television set by Apple will probably be just a top of the line TV with an integrated Apple TV instead of the super crappy interface that most TV's have to access thing like netflix.
That's retarded. Any Apple television would be based on existing standards, i.e. 1920x1080 sized panels. Going to a larger resolution means having to scale media and that requires extra processing muscle and doesn't look as good as the original.
That's retarded. Any Apple television would be based on existing standards, i.e. 1920x1080 sized panels. Going to a larger resolution means having to scale media and that requires extra processing muscle and doesn't look as good as the original.
That is exactly the issue with the music industry before the iPod. You needed to go buy a CD with a load of other songs you probably don't want, to get that one song.
Why can't Apple try to do the same with TV channels?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293)
Apple TV with Siri integration, you might not need a remote... ' I want to watch the next episode of Breaking Bad, as I'm watching it, let me know when my Apple stock goes over $500'
Apple TV with Siri integration, you might not need a remote... ' I want to watch the next episode of Breaking Bad, as I'm watching it, let me know when my Apple stock goes over $500'
There is a reason they called TV the idiot box.
I hate almost all TV. Most of it is for idiots and I have no wish to pay for it. Furthermore, I like in the UK where the TV licence is mandatory. I don't see the Apple TV helping the dire situation there.
I hate almost all TV. Most of it is for idiots and I have no wish to pay for it. Furthermore, I like in the UK where the TV licence is mandatory. I don't see the Apple TV helping the dire situation there.
"Siri, you're running off a 99$ AppleTV set top box".
Folks, forget stuff that can be done with a set top box. Apple is not going to bother to make a TV set and compete with other manufacturers by presenting functionality that's essentially just an integrated set top box, it makes no sense.
If all you think the AppleTV set would be is a 99$ AppleTV + a 1700$ TV, you're mistaken. Apple would just sell the 99$ box and have a much bigger market to sell to (all the folks with other TVs).
Yeah, that's what Siri would hear.
Conversational interfaces are crap in group situations. Siri on iPhone 4S works relatively well because your mouth is closer to one microphone than the other, but in a living room it's not going to know your words from whoever else is talking.
No. people downloaded the song without paying for it...and Apple did not give them that option.
Then came th iPod. Most people did not buy it because it was expensive or they hated Apple...and continued to download that song without paying...
Then the iPod started to hit the comersial marked...and people bought the iPod and downloaded the song without paying....
Then the iPod took off! And so did downloading that one song without spending $ on it......
And now we have the iPhone, iPad .... And people are doing what?......yeah, and using Spotify.
I'm talking about "most people" here...yeah I know...there are some people out there that spend money on the iTunes store... you have the ocational fanboy buying his songs and albums from Apple
We did just that after much the same analysis (and same woes with two generations of DirecTV's hyper-clunky DVR hardware) in 2008. It's great. I wouldn't ever go back unless they cut the subscription cost by 80% or more (because that's what we ended up saving). On the other hand, we're an all-SD family (we have 720p sets, but just don't see the need for the higher resolution 90% of the time) so the savings are more dramatic, and the responsiveness is acceptable (buy/rent a movie/show and it's playing in 30 seconds or less, over our low-end 3Mbps connection).
Siri said:
No Breaking Bad for you tonight!
(Note: eventually Apple will fix the Siri "growing pains" by scaling their hardware etc. But it's been a very long week+ with Siri not working during the evenings ... which would be when you want to control your TV no doubt ...)
And how about this...
When the mp3 format and mp3-players came Apple was involved in the early days of that technology.
Same goes for touch devices. They jumped on the wagon at the right time with products that used the technology and "did it".
TV have been around for...how long? Apple did not even exist before the TV was in most homes all over the western world...
When the mp3 format and mp3-players came Apple was involved in the early days of that technology.
Same goes for touch devices. They jumped on the wagon at the right time with products that used the technology and "did it".
TV have been around for...how long? Apple did not even exist before the TV was in most homes all over the western world...
I saw this too earlier today on CNBC and I really liked the analyst not getting all excited as Simon Hobbs did. Hargreaves questioned the need for an actual TV as opposed to the set-top box and gave some compelling reasons.
For those who did not see this, here is a link to the video (especially after 2:30):
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000052930
Could Apple do it with the hardware? I don't see it. I'm not paying a premium for an Apple TV. The picture won't be better. It can't look too much cooler than my Samsung, if at all.
Could they do it by offering tv and movies on demand. Even less likely. If they try, they will end up being a slave to the cable companies they are trying to stamp out. Cable companies own the pipes. Apple tv tries to cut them out and you'll be paying through the nose for the Internet. Which is the same reason I fear for the success of iCloud and like services. The more popular they get, the more power the telecoms have, and they are the scum of the business world.
Could they do it by offering tv and movies on demand. Even less likely. If they try, they will end up being a slave to the cable companies they are trying to stamp out. Cable companies own the pipes. Apple tv tries to cut them out and you'll be paying through the nose for the Internet. Which is the same reason I fear for the success of iCloud and like services. The more popular they get, the more power the telecoms have, and they are the scum of the business world.
Yes it is. All available right now. I'm watching a bluray right now. Could switch to my Tivo with one button, or to my Mac for internet, games, etc. Using a remote well under $100 if wanted.
And it's been available for years in the full graphical ability you described, albeit pricey. The iPad is actually cheaper as a control center.
Maybe you just haven't thought it all out. You don't really want it only in one device. Even your description talks about more than one device.
Last edited:
May be not as excited as Simon Hobbs Hargreaves should have been but he is thinking that Apple's play is in services and software and not hardware. But there is no direct money in software and services unless the service includes cable subscription. He has not thought through yet the potentials.
He keeps mentioning supply chain. This is actually not a problem. These days, TVs are not going to take much space in the Apple store. They will only have a few models which they will hang on the walls. They already have a few TVs that are their for advertisement purposes. They do not have to be like Best Buy and devote a whole lot of space for their TVs.
The same arguments were dished out before iPod came out, in fact even after it came out. Apple made the money on hardware. iTunes and songs were there just to sell the hardware. So Apple will have to have enough compelling content that works with the TV so people will buy the TV from Apple.
Can;t see that being a good idea. Unless they are trying to get into the XBOX/PS3 type thing where you can have a hopefully inexpensive console and sell 50 mil+ of them. Then you got iTunes under a lot of sets. Easier to do, a TV set from them would be bad business IMO. Waste of money on their part.
Hint: Sell Microsoft.
This isn't going to be about an integrated
TV. This isn't even going to be about TV. It's going to be about how Apple drinks the game console and cable set-top box milkshake.
This isn't going to be about an integrated
TV. This isn't even going to be about TV. It's going to be about how Apple drinks the game console and cable set-top box milkshake.
My Thoughts
I believe the "crack" is the user interface. That's where TV's are lacking. And that's what apple has a nack for streamlining. Just like the "swipe" this new "crack" will become the industry standard that all others will try to emulate.
As for my guess, I think it's a going to be a combination of Siri and gestures. But the "crack" isn't the Siri part, well not entirely, it will be a way of canceling out all sounds that the TV makes, so Siri will only hear you. If the TV knows the sounds it is making, than it can negate them(like noise cancellation). the microphone will "hear" everything but apply the sounds it is making 180 degrees out of phase, thus canceling them.
I think the first units will be "normal" TV's and we will watch cable as normal, but you will also have the choice to watch things like HBO Go etc. Eventually the "cable" may be cut.
As I see it in my head, I'm sitting on the couch watching.... "TV, show program True Blood". The TV replies,"You've already watched the latest episode, would you like to watch it again?" Then I'd say,"No, show me a list of all episodes."and finally,"Ah, Play episode 3 season 1".
Just my thoughts, as for the price, expensive, and we'll all pay it.
I believe the "crack" is the user interface. That's where TV's are lacking. And that's what apple has a nack for streamlining. Just like the "swipe" this new "crack" will become the industry standard that all others will try to emulate.
As for my guess, I think it's a going to be a combination of Siri and gestures. But the "crack" isn't the Siri part, well not entirely, it will be a way of canceling out all sounds that the TV makes, so Siri will only hear you. If the TV knows the sounds it is making, than it can negate them(like noise cancellation). the microphone will "hear" everything but apply the sounds it is making 180 degrees out of phase, thus canceling them.
I think the first units will be "normal" TV's and we will watch cable as normal, but you will also have the choice to watch things like HBO Go etc. Eventually the "cable" may be cut.
As I see it in my head, I'm sitting on the couch watching.... "TV, show program True Blood". The TV replies,"You've already watched the latest episode, would you like to watch it again?" Then I'd say,"No, show me a list of all episodes."and finally,"Ah, Play episode 3 season 1".
Just my thoughts, as for the price, expensive, and we'll all pay it.
Hint: Sell Microsoft.
This isn't going to be about an integrated
You may well have a point. The current main set-top box manufacturers are Cisco (who bought Scientific Atlanta) and Motorola and the boxes are really appalling with clunky software and generally a really poor user experience. Exhibit 1 is my Cisco 8642HDC which is a relatively new box - Came out in in the latter half of 2009, I believe, which makes it "state of the art" and it is poor.
If Apple could make a box (and Apple TV was not it) which is fast, has a beautiful interface and incorporates and far extends the capabilities of the current Cisco/Motorola/Pace boxes as well as Apple's own content, they could well supplant the dinosaur boxes that are currently used.
Some people here think that Google's take-over of Motorola Mobility was about cellphones and patents. Motorola Mobility makes the set-top boxes and that is also, if not the prime reason, why Google bought it. This is how Google believes they get the convergence between internet and TV done right.