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
Quad HD makes sense for the average $1800 selling point
Quad HD (or 4K), that is 3840x2160 or 4096x2160 is the only way an average price of $1800 is going to sell. Currently Quad HDTVs are much more expensive.
If Apple is going to sell actual TV panels, then I would imagine them to be somewhat future proof. TV's (usually) aren't replaced every 2-4 years like phones and computers. So, even though the only content produced at those resolutions are a few movies so far (4K movies), I can imagine that iTunes/iCloud would push that content for now until more 4K content is produced as TV Shows, etc.
There is a concern about SuperHi Vision being the next true international standard. That is 16 times Full HD (7680x4320 resolution). There is talk of this coming around 2015-2021. If so, an old 4K Apple TV being only 50" would still look good even if it could only show a quarter of SuperHi Vision resolutions because SuperHi Vision is only useful at much larger sizes, like the current 85" LCD display demonstrated earlier this year. It's about 104 dpi (great at 7-20 feet). Though a 210 dpi 42" display would be great for medical and large computer displays though, for viewing at 1-3 feet away.
Another point, of course, would be the awesome simplicity and usefulness of the interface (GUI) for picking and watching content. Apple would be good at that. In that case, an AppleTV box with true 1080p capability, more content, and higher bandwidth content is all that is needed for now, and that could be easy with an A5 chip as in the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2. That combined with the future bandwidth of 4G Cellular services or other home internet services (100+ Mbit/s) and iCloud.
Quad HD (or 4K), that is 3840x2160 or 4096x2160 is the only way an average price of $1800 is going to sell. Currently Quad HDTVs are much more expensive.
If Apple is going to sell actual TV panels, then I would imagine them to be somewhat future proof. TV's (usually) aren't replaced every 2-4 years like phones and computers. So, even though the only content produced at those resolutions are a few movies so far (4K movies), I can imagine that iTunes/iCloud would push that content for now until more 4K content is produced as TV Shows, etc.
There is a concern about SuperHi Vision being the next true international standard. That is 16 times Full HD (7680x4320 resolution). There is talk of this coming around 2015-2021. If so, an old 4K Apple TV being only 50" would still look good even if it could only show a quarter of SuperHi Vision resolutions because SuperHi Vision is only useful at much larger sizes, like the current 85" LCD display demonstrated earlier this year. It's about 104 dpi (great at 7-20 feet). Though a 210 dpi 42" display would be great for medical and large computer displays though, for viewing at 1-3 feet away.
Another point, of course, would be the awesome simplicity and usefulness of the interface (GUI) for picking and watching content. Apple would be good at that. In that case, an AppleTV box with true 1080p capability, more content, and higher bandwidth content is all that is needed for now, and that could be easy with an A5 chip as in the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2. That combined with the future bandwidth of 4G Cellular services or other home internet services (100+ Mbit/s) and iCloud.
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
Someone is spending a lot of money on music then.
Ok, so I have read through 12 pages of posts on this topic, and I still don't see any compelling reason why it would be in Apple's interest to get into the screen-making (or re-branding) business based on current display technology.
All of the improvements described could be achieved with an upgrade to the existing AppleTV set top box, connected to a screen of your choosing.
If you look back at Apple's killer products of the last 5 years, they have been wildly successful at introducing category-defining products into immature markets.
The iPod defined the immature mp3 player market. iTunes defined the immature online mp3 sales market. The iPhone defined the immature smartphone market. The iPad defined the non-existent tablet computer market.
The problem with the market for TV sets is that it is the most mature market in the technology industry. The Sony's, Pioneers and Panasonics of this world already produce fantastic mature products and have done for years. I'm sure Apple could produce a very nice looking set as good as these guys, but they are never going to be able to define this market in the same way that they did with iPods, iPhones and iPads, and there is no way they are going to be able to convince consumers to upgrade their television sets every 18 months.
Basically, I think that Apple would be much much better off investing in improving the current AppleTV set-top box product (where we have yet to see a category defining product - from Apple or anyone else) than becoming a bit-part player in the television set business.
All of the improvements described could be achieved with an upgrade to the existing AppleTV set top box, connected to a screen of your choosing.
If you look back at Apple's killer products of the last 5 years, they have been wildly successful at introducing category-defining products into immature markets.
The iPod defined the immature mp3 player market. iTunes defined the immature online mp3 sales market. The iPhone defined the immature smartphone market. The iPad defined the non-existent tablet computer market.
The problem with the market for TV sets is that it is the most mature market in the technology industry. The Sony's, Pioneers and Panasonics of this world already produce fantastic mature products and have done for years. I'm sure Apple could produce a very nice looking set as good as these guys, but they are never going to be able to define this market in the same way that they did with iPods, iPhones and iPads, and there is no way they are going to be able to convince consumers to upgrade their television sets every 18 months.
Basically, I think that Apple would be much much better off investing in improving the current AppleTV set-top box product (where we have yet to see a category defining product - from Apple or anyone else) than becoming a bit-part player in the television set business.
I think that $1800 is completely reasonable for this device. You have to consider all that is going into it. They won't just be selling a screen with a chip in it. Based off the rumors and patents, it will come fully loaded with surround sound speakers a high res screen, and include the technology to game, watch movies, tv, listen to music, watch YouTube etc all brought together on one device with a flawless user interface. All of this together would probably cost more to buy seperately, have an inferior user interface and not to mention the apple tv will probably have some of the best industrial design of any tv in the world. While it will be really expensive, I think anyone wanting a descent setup will pay for this bc they'd have to pay that much anyway.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
i have multiple apple products and love them all dearly - however
For TVs, i think it would take Apple to really release something magical for me to dump my current Samsung 3dLED.. im at awe with samsung TVs
yes their phones and tablets suck - but i give credit where it is due
For TVs, i think it would take Apple to really release something magical for me to dump my current Samsung 3dLED.. im at awe with samsung TVs
yes their phones and tablets suck - but i give credit where it is due
I am curious to see if they can actually produce a TV with a better than crappy set of built in speakers. I am also curious to see if they can actually pull off a higher than 1080P screen in a large size for the price.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)
I've been saying this for years. Sell me a channel I want for two dollars a month. I'd prob still buy 5-10 channels.
Those who really want a bunch could still buy the channel packs.
troop231 said:
I've been saying this for years. Sell me a channel I want for two dollars a month. I'd prob still buy 5-10 channels.
Those who really want a bunch could still buy the channel packs.
The reason the built-in speakers are crappy is because audiophiles will be investing in a surround sound system anyway.
Second this. I have never used the speakers on my samsung TV. My paradigm's however sound beautiful.
Like I said earlier, if Apple actually produces TVs, it would have to be higher resolution and better but proven color and contrast ratio also. A Quad HD or 4K TV with newer/better LCD and a full selective RGB LED backlighting would make sense. A TV that actually looks so much better next to the best there is today at the stores would sell at that higher price.
But I agree, Apple probably won't make/use a "good" existing 1080p LCD panel for an actual TV. So I think they just need to put a A5 (or then an A6) into an AppleTV, make it a true 1080p source and give it very good bandwidth (30+ Mbit/s) with much more content and possibly "channels" to rent/buy. Also, make it an DVR. Every one who has a DVR has rarely ever gone without since and the AppleTV would have to provide storage space for recording a show on a "channel" that's not already provided with streaming content.
So, Apple will have to make a much better and higher resolution panel, OR vastly improve the AppleTV and it's content as well as give it storage for DVR capabilities.
My TV's speakers have only ever been used for:
1. Beep-boop-bleep video game sound effects
2. News shows
3. Kid shows
Where I can I avoid turning on the theater system and doubling the energy use of the set. But, yes, since they are only ever used for low-quality-required effects I don't mind if they suck, so long as they are reasonably usable.
guys, stop saying you think Apple will or won't that's beside the point.
the point is, IF they do, WHAT would it consist of?
I think it will use iOS and an A5 chip.
----------
I hate how stupid you people are being.
they would stream recorded shows from iCloud, possibly using a coax setup.
and it would have an 8Gb or 16GB NAND, MAX. for apps and OS.
and they would probably make the next iPad 1080P, so as to share apps with TVs.
we can already see the writing on the wall with AirPlay.
the point is, IF they do, WHAT would it consist of?
I think it will use iOS and an A5 chip.
----------
I hate how stupid you people are being.
they would stream recorded shows from iCloud, possibly using a coax setup.
and it would have an 8Gb or 16GB NAND, MAX. for apps and OS.
and they would probably make the next iPad 1080P, so as to share apps with TVs.
we can already see the writing on the wall with AirPlay.
Why would they give this to you for $10-20 when they're getting substantially more for it from you now?
iTV
Apple wouldn't need to charge too much for the TV since 99.999 percent of us don't want anyone touching our TV screen so a touch screen television is pointless. The cost of that is removed.
The way I see it is the TV remote having a mic in it to tell Siri what you want to watch or launch TV apps and of course iTunes built in and an array of other internet like functions, possibly lighting control etc.
Apple wouldn't need to charge too much for the TV since 99.999 percent of us don't want anyone touching our TV screen so a touch screen television is pointless. The cost of that is removed.
The way I see it is the TV remote having a mic in it to tell Siri what you want to watch or launch TV apps and of course iTunes built in and an array of other internet like functions, possibly lighting control etc.
Maybe, but I think the Siri function on the iPhone is more a building block for things to come. Being able to say "Siri, please turn on the Bears game and turn on my surround sound" is easier than navigating using a bunch of silly gestures like Kinect, but I could see a combination working well with Siri pulling up your iTunes collection of music an movies and swiping through cover flow would be kind of useful.
Reminds me of that FedEx commercial where the guy states his idea to the board and goes ignored just before the other guy says the exact same thing while making the hand gesture.