Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not just an average TV...

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 :apple: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.
 
The prices are going to have to be reasonable, that is certain. Unless they can implement something crazy and new. As it is, I'd still buy one price dependant but I couldn't justify spending 3000$ on a TV that I could buy for 1000$ just because of the Apple logo.

It appears that many are purchasing an iPad for $800 when you can get a tablet fo less than $200. People don't purchase Apple products for the logo, they buy them because of the benefits provided. They all integrate well with minimal effort. That's all well worth the extra money. If it wasn't, Apple wouldn't have $81B sitting in the bank.

If you don't mind constantly fighting with your equipment and technology, by all means stick with the cheep. The choice is always yours, unless you're dealing with the government.
 
If apple has any brain left in the company, they would NEVER get into this business.
 
As long as it doesn't have a glossy screen! That is already a deal breaker on the otherwise ideal iMac, I wouldn't want it to be on what is potentially an excellent TV.

I've said what I don't want, but what do I want?

Some new screen technology such as CNT-FED.

Apple have said in the past that a problem is the balkanised cable standards. I hope an Apple TV would have enough computing power to run any cable box as a virtualised machine, eliminating the need for a separate box.

An optional cradle on the back to hold a Mac Mini so that the TV can double up as a monitor without a separate visible box. Or have a new blade Mac that clips neatly onto the back. Both offer a screen that lasts, but an upgradeable computer.

The more obvious things such as iOS device as a remote, TV guide and allows setting changes without covering the screen. Siri. Full Apple TV functionality. Airplay also beams the cable / satellite TV channels to iOS devices.
 
... The choice is always yours, unless you're dealing with the government.

Ah... had to get the teabag thing in, huh?
Good luck with your poisoned air and tainted food. Free market handles that just fine, huh?

----------

If apple has any brain left in the company, they would NEVER get into this business.

I'm sure they're beating down the door to hire you as CEO, huh princess?
 
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)

Sooner or later they"ll probably come out with one.
Whatever hardware Apple creates it"ll be popular. Heck , if they even make a microwave they"ll sale millions.
 
Explain to me why the content providers should change their model to something that results in you sending them less money every month?

Because the biggest alternative is a model that results in people sending them NO money every month.

The same thing that an integrated hard drive brings to a laptop versus an external one. Simplicity.

I'd argue that the disadvantage of external HD in a laptop is portability. Once it's hooked up (which is REALLY easy) an external aTV box is every bit as simple as something integrated to the TV.
 
Why do people continually think something is a "great business model" because it results in things being cheaper for the consumer? Explain to me why the content providers should change their model to something that results in you sending them less money every month? Show me the model where you send more money to your cable company or to the network providers and then you might have a "great business model". Show me how they can raise the prices they charge to run adds, then you've got a "great business model." I'm not saying this can't be done, but suggesting that you should be able to buy just five channels of content and cut your monthly cable bill in half just doesn't make sense for the company receiving those checks.

For the record, I cut the cord on cable TV and just get free over the air HD. I get the basic channels, including plenty of NFL games on Sunday. But I still pay my cable provider for internet service, so they get a nice check from me every month.

Easily shown: Netfix. No commercial, affordable, instant. Okay, it does not have news and not the variety of shows, but it is on demand. Now another one: Hulu. Integrated commercials based on focus groups (therefore more revenue per add) - so it even answers your question about the "loss" in commercials. Works for music, too a la Pandora or last.fm. These models exist. You can also live-stream certain news stations over the internet. Porting that directly into a TV is not that far-fetched. I mean, with a HDMI cable, I can do that via PC onto my TV already. That is how I watch YouTube now. All these business models either include commercials or subscriptions (or both with Hulu on iPad, XBOX360 etc.). And don't forget one thing: The cable providers might not like that but the stations might. Open competition and setting the own price will definitely be attractive to stations like Spike or CBS. Actually, it is the other way round: There is a cake - the money monthly paid to cable / satellite providers - of which the stations would probably like to have a bigger piece of. If you have a popular channel, you might very well increase your revenue if you are available without a bundle of channels dragged along.
You are right in one thing: It is not a favorable model for cable providers, but they discovered the fast internet bandwidth as new market already, so, they will make the money there then. :cool:
 
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)

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.
 
Who knows?

Perhaps some iOS things like facetime with perhaps airplay combined? Would love to "coverflow" through the tvchannels if they add some multi touch control

If it is a iOS system games etc. should work as well needing a touch control surface, not sure I would like that. Perhaps a setup with a surface, just a wand thingy. But as mentioned above: most of the time we just watch a tv unlike mac and ios device where you interact. When they had a big survey years ago trying to see if people wanted "interactive TV" the big question is what people wanted from a TV and the answer was: I just want to be entertained.

Interactive TV turned into computer games I guess.

So what is Apple going to add, I dunno? My Pioneer screen was 15000$ new together with the HD Humax, Denon sound setup and AC Ryan media player I got pretty much everything I need right now. Not sure I need a snazzy way to switch between 2 hour movies. (PS3 for BluRay but too lazy to switch discs to be honest)



What does Apple coming out with a whole TV set offer on top of what a set top box does right now ?

99$ Apple TV, plugs into any set and can do all the eco-system stuff.

1800$ Apple TV Set... what does this bring to the table above and beyond the 99$ box ?

Anyone have any ideas ?
 
If this 1800$ price is true....

Im sorry but 1800 dollars is RIDICULOUS for a TV nowadays. Honestly I could go to best buy and buy a 37" samsung or LG LED HDTV for like 999$

Seriously, I understand the computers coming at a premium but a TV is a TV and for 1800$ people are GOING to look elsewhere.

Let's wait and see. It was not long time ago when people thought a $499 - $1000 pricetag for an iPad was rediculous, especially since netbooks were already selling for $250 at that point in time.

Maybe it will be something more than just a smart TV?
 
for everyone complaing about price...

$1800 is alot, but are you really complaining? the current price range goes from about $500 for a decent TV to around $4000 for a high end sony/samsung "smart" tv. an Apple television set for ~$2000 would probably sell, although i personally would like a price <$1500 (although its not likely)...:cool:
 
Not gonna happen.
No profit opportunity, no iProduct.


"Munster believes that Apple could sell 1.4 million television sets at an average selling price of $1800 in 2012"

And he 'calculated' these numbers how exactly?
 
Reality check

If Apple does TV at all, we've already seen the writing on the wall.

And without further Ado... Great predictions from the Great Eye of Appledom: ( in other words, my guesses that are based off of nothing but hunches, but at least I'm honest unlike the "analyst" in the article)

* It will be donee though Apple TV box *or* you may opt to buy an Apple branded TV with the box integrated in it

* There is no way in hell Apple will make Apple branded TVs be required for the service. People don't upgrade TVs like they do iPhones/iPods/etc.

* Anyway... then the main deal here is going to be "watch anywhere".
It will support streaming from iCloud ( with local caching when you're offline ) for your iOS devices, and Macs and Windows PCs as well as the aforementioned Apple TV boxes and branded TVs.

* You'll be able to pick up a show you're currently watching on another device so you can take it with you

* You will be allowed to SHARE the TV shows with other users that subscribe to the service.

* Stupidly Apple will probably try to get you to use ping with this. Hopefully logic will prevail and use it without having to "social" it.

* You will be able to keep the show indefinitely on the cloud and you can "buy it" for a small upcharge if you want to keep it permanently locally, or upgrade to the HD version.

* You will be given the option to stream SD or HD for any device at any time ( if the show supports it of course ).

* you will NOT be allowed to burn the media or transfer it to another digital device. People will bitch and moan about this and then eventually say "meh", which will ultimately be sad

* It will launch without the support of NBC. But may get some premium channels for free for 6 months or something like HBO.

* I have no idea when this will all happen.

THUS Endeth the predictions!
 
All the pre iPad rumors had it being expensive as well. I bet apple pr puts these out on purpose just for the wow effect when the price is revealed.
Apple sure surprised all those naysayers claiming the iPad would cost as much as $800 and would be stuck with data capped service plans. Oh, wait...
 
You need to hook your TV into your non Apple television set. And that is the point I think. Apple want to integrate everything under the Apple umbrella. So the entire setup had the  logo on it.

You are thinking the way that stupid marketeers think (which is the way that Apple usually doesn't think). You are looking at it from what you think is Apple's point of view. Apple would be looking at it from the customers' point of view.

Everything that Apple can do better than the TV makers can be put into a little box plus the remote control. The other part, screen, speakers, monitor stand, that is not something that Apple can do much better. The reason why iPhone beat Nokia is that Apple could produce something that was actually _better_ than what Nokia produced. Only a tiny handful of idiots buys something because it has an Apple logo; they buy Apple products because / if they are better. Only very few would buy a TV because it has an Apple logo. I am quite sure that Apple can put something into a little box that would make me spend money for it. I do _not_ think that Apple could make me spend more money on a TV set than I would pay elsewhere.


I am with you. May be a coverflow type flipping will work. Or like a photo album type 'outplosion' into separate windows to show thumbnail of channels, 10 at a time.

That is perfectly doable, just not with the cheap hardware that TV and set top box makers use.
An example: In the UK, a Humax box has two receivers. Each receiver receives up to six programs multiplexed. The box can extract three programs to record two and display one. But each program is made of sequences of several seconds, and to display anything, you need to have the whole sequence from the start. That's why switching channels is so slow, because you switch to another program, and you are in the middle of a multi-second sequence and have to wait for it to finish first.

Solution: Record all channels in RAM continuously, at least a few seconds so that you always have the beginning of a complete sequence in RAM. When switching channels, start with the beginning of that frame. So the TV may display what it received a second or five ago, but nobody would ever notice that. All you need is a bit of RAM. Something that Apple could do easily.

Now if you have a powerful decoder, that can decode four channels simultaneously, then you can do coverflow with four live TV programs actually moving on the screen.
 
Last edited:
Not gonna happen.
No profit opportunity, no iProduct.


"Munster believes that Apple could sell 1.4 million television sets at an average selling price of $1800 in 2012"

And he 'calculated' these numbers how exactly?

Munster is a fool. He is talking about this TV for years. He is making a bet, touting this TV and if Apple ever brings this to the market he will call himself a genius.
No matter what happens, I hardly believe what this "analysts" predict anyway.
 
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.

This might have nothing to do with how an Apple TV might function, but I just thought I'd throw this comment about TV Devolution in hopes that it inspires someone to improve how TV's work these days.

I am with you. May be a coverflow type flipping will work. Or like a photo album type 'outplosion' into separate windows to show thumbnail of channels, 10 at a time.
 
Why can't Apple do for TV like they did for music? Only on a streaming basis. IE Pay $40 a month for ESPN streaming or $20 to stream HGTV, TLC etc? through a cable box Tivo that will work with Dish or DirecTV cards as well?
 
First, TVs aren't a high velocity product. Most buy a TV and then have it around for 5-10 years.

Besides which, TVs are far too individual for Apple to try to get any kind of market penetration without a completely fragmented product line, which isn't their style. Most people wouldn't say "I don't want a Mac because it won't fit my desk decor", or "The iPhone style doesn't match the rest of my pants". But TVs absolutely are purchased to match home theatre and living room decors, and sized according to fit wall spaces and furniture placement. Should Apple sell a TV with a black bezel? Silver? 32"? 37"? 40"? 42"? 50"? 55"?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.