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
It has to be an integrated STB (with content selected by the viewer)/Apple TV/internet portal linked to an Apple remote and wireless keyboard. Selling a monitor that consumers replace about every 5 years and that is available in about 20 different sizes just doesn't make sense for Apple, and has way too low a margin besides.
I find it unbelievable that people are saying the exact same thing now about a so-called Apple branded TV as when the first Apple Phone rumors started. And when Apple introduced the iPod.
IF Apple were to enter the TV business, they surely will have found a new technology or user experience or pay-per-view solution or something else that will make this product another must-have.
Steve and now Tim and the team would have asked themselves the same questions again: what is bad about the TV experience today, and tackled them.
My main TV-irritation is the fact that I must subscribe to all cable channels just to be able to watch my favorite few. I can view about 150 channels (only about 20 in HD) but I watch only about 10. And even then I can't watch what I really want to.
It's even worse: of the 10 favourite channels, I watch just a few programmes.
I would love an affordable way of pay-per-view. The ultimate TV on demand.
I would love to watch live sports in HD, and not just the stuff they show us over here in Europe. I would love to watch some Nascar, IndyCar, MLB in HD live. It is just not possible here because the cable companies simply won't transmit them.
We live in a world where we all are connected. Via broadband internet we can easily watch 720p HD movies off the current TV.
Please... someone kill the cable companies. Give me HDTV-on-demand. Live sports from the US too. Maybe a few hours delay.
IMHO, if Apple could give us real TV-on-demand, they would have cracked it. Easy user interface? Just give us a lovely 1080p 50" monitor with ultra thin edges an logo and 4 HDMI ports.
The AV receiver will handle the rest.
IF Apple were to enter the TV business, they surely will have found a new technology or user experience or pay-per-view solution or something else that will make this product another must-have.
Steve and now Tim and the team would have asked themselves the same questions again: what is bad about the TV experience today, and tackled them.
My main TV-irritation is the fact that I must subscribe to all cable channels just to be able to watch my favorite few. I can view about 150 channels (only about 20 in HD) but I watch only about 10. And even then I can't watch what I really want to.
It's even worse: of the 10 favourite channels, I watch just a few programmes.
I would love an affordable way of pay-per-view. The ultimate TV on demand.
I would love to watch live sports in HD, and not just the stuff they show us over here in Europe. I would love to watch some Nascar, IndyCar, MLB in HD live. It is just not possible here because the cable companies simply won't transmit them.
We live in a world where we all are connected. Via broadband internet we can easily watch 720p HD movies off the current TV.
Please... someone kill the cable companies. Give me HDTV-on-demand. Live sports from the US too. Maybe a few hours delay.
IMHO, if Apple could give us real TV-on-demand, they would have cracked it. Easy user interface? Just give us a lovely 1080p 50" monitor with ultra thin edges an logo and 4 HDMI ports.
The AV receiver will handle the rest.
Would it use an A6? run iOS? what about all the processing chips that enhance the video and all that good stuff? what about the resolution? would it be LED? i'm really curious about this, if they do it right, it could be huge. it just seems like Apple is getting spread a little thin especially considering some of the iOS 5 & Lion issues.
and they had better have everything in HD. honestly it's annoying as ****.
and they had better have everything in HD. honestly it's annoying as ****.
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.
what will they do about sizes though?
i assume they will only do 1080P or MAYBE even 4K, but they will only have 1 resolution.
but what screen sizes will they have? they don't have enough room or patientece to have 50 different screen sizes, plus it would really bad seeing apple stores full to the rim with TVs, it'd look like that's what they relied on.
i assume they will only do 1080P or MAYBE even 4K, but they will only have 1 resolution.
but what screen sizes will they have? they don't have enough room or patientece to have 50 different screen sizes, plus it would really bad seeing apple stores full to the rim with TVs, it'd look like that's what they relied on.
Well since Apple doesn't appear to be using plasma for the display (according to the current rumors) we can tell right off the bat that the PQ isn't going to be as great as it could be...
if siri, facetime, app store were part of the deal, i could see the increased price as justified. might opt for one myself. finally the digital hub steve had long touted/looked for.
Where are you going to get those increased subscribers when the vast majority of American households already have cable of satellite services and are paying for their TV in bulk? Yes, it is simple economics. A lot more American consumers have to show that they are willing to cut cable entirely in order to force cable companies to offer up cheaper individual purchase services.
Below link suggest that over 80% of America is currently paying for TV under the current model.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perc...as_odd_that_all_the_debates_are_only_on_cable.
If they use LED or OLED. it could be astounding.
i'm hoping they will use that trillion color tech.
There is a DVD player used in 88% of all US TV-owning households (as of June, 2009, per Nielsen). Bluray isn't as widespread by far, but where DVD player use has gone down, it's been largely replaced by Bluray.
I think that more than 1% of US households will still want to be able to play the library of movies they bought on DVD and can't figure out how to rip to something more permanent (and backupable).
I would love that too (although i've long since found that bonus content on DVDs is too hit-or-miss to be worth my time). Problem is, most people can't "instantly" transition their DVD and Bluray libraries to digital copies without "instantly" rebuying everything. Which would make the $1800 AppleTV something more like a $3300 AppleTV (assuming $15/movie and 100 movies, which is on the low end for many but probably about "average").
Also consider that 54% of US TV-owning households have 3 or more TV sets, and 82% have two or more, again as of June 2009 according to Nielsen. Only 11% of them do NOT currently get cable or satellite, which an input-free AppleTV box would obviously not support. That's a lot of folks having to spend twice whatever Apple is selling their TV set at to completely "switch" ecosystems. In the middle of a recession, that's not a likely scenario.
While we're dreaming, I'd like a subscription service that excludes all sporting events and channels, as I never watch them.
I'd also like the service to take a hint from Sirius XM radio, which offers music from the 40s through 90s on dedicated channels, and offer TV from the past. I'd like select programming from 1940-2000, so roughly 60 dedicated channels.
I'd also like the service to take a hint from Sirius XM radio, which offers music from the 40s through 90s on dedicated channels, and offer TV from the past. I'd like select programming from 1940-2000, so roughly 60 dedicated channels.
I find it unbelievable that people are saying the exact same thing now about a so-called Apple branded TV as when the first Apple Phone rumors started. And when Apple introduced the iPod.
IF Apple were to enter the TV business, they surely will have found a new technology or user experience or pay-per-view solution or something else that will make this product another must-have.
Steve and now Tim and the team would have asked themselves the same questions again: what is bad about the TV experience today, and tackled them.
My main TV-irritation is the fact that I must subscribe to all cable channels just to be able to watch my favorite few. I can view about 150 channels (only about 20 in HD) but I watch only about 10. And even then I can't watch what I really want to.
It's even worse: of the 10 favourite channels, I watch just a few programmes.
I would love an affordable way of pay-per-view. The ultimate TV on demand.
I would love to watch live sports in HD, and not just the stuff they show us over here in Europe. I would love to watch some Nascar, IndyCar, MLB in HD live. It is just not possible here because the cable companies simply won't transmit them.
We live in a world where we all are connected. Via broadband internet we can easily watch 720p HD movies off the current TV.
Please... someone kill the cable companies. Give me HDTV-on-demand. Live sports from the US too. Maybe a few hours delay.
IMHO, if Apple could give us real TV-on-demand, they would have cracked it. Easy user interface? Just give us a lovely 1080p 50" monitor with ultra thin edges an logo and 4 HDMI ports.
The AV receiver will handle the rest.
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.
I like both of those ideas. i hope they have GOOD surround sound too. ugh, i'm gettin my hopes up again lol
I think the point where Apple could REALLY have an effect is in the receiver.
Instead of "no inputs", make the AppleTV not just a single source, but a single source plus the switch for all your other sources. The DVD player plugs into AppleTV. The Bluray plugs into AppleTV. The cable box plugs into AppleTV.
Add an IR emitter to the AppleTV, or, better, evangelize some sort of common control mechanism. Apple probably wouldn't even be able to do the latter (how many failed control buses are out there? I know JVC and Sony both had such "standards" in the late '80s that went nowhere ...), and I'm not sure if Apple would like the wire-octopus look of IR emitters going everywhere (or would they be wireless?). In any case, though, this is not a problem that is solved by Apple integrating into the TV anyway.
Back to the TV: The TV is then tuned to Input 1 (the AppleTV) and the TV remote is tossed in the trash. The only missing link here is the ability to turn the TV screen on and off again (although if the AppleTV had a true "screen off" mode then most TVs would detect that none of their inputs have a signal and power down).
The AppleTV would support all signal-switching, and might to the Dolby Digital decoding itself of just two-channel decoding with an optional digital audio output for a home theater system of your choice (which, again, would be left on the AppleTV input all the time).
Again, though, I have to stress that NONE of this requires or even benefits from the AppleTV being integrated with the monitor, except that that integration allows the AppleTV to turn off the monitor directly and allows the user to avoid attaching two ends of one cable between the two.
wireless would be good, but tey again that's a bunch of stuff scattered everywhere. i would hope that they can somehow make built in surround that is as good as old fashioned satellite speaker surround.
Apple Television reminds me of Apple Hi-Fi.
Guys we have AppleTV. Right there is all you need. Unless, Apple has such a revolutionary TV hardware device that will make us all want one, I see no reason to create another dumb display with Apple logo on it.
All the user experience, content and great software can live inside that $99 box that is so easy to update and will not break the bank. TV sets are expensive and people keep them for way more years than most computers or IOS devices.
Guys we have AppleTV. Right there is all you need. Unless, Apple has such a revolutionary TV hardware device that will make us all want one, I see no reason to create another dumb display with Apple logo on it.
All the user experience, content and great software can live inside that $99 box that is so easy to update and will not break the bank. TV sets are expensive and people keep them for way more years than most computers or IOS devices.
When Apple can sell me a 65" panel that can be delivered in a poster tube, unrolled and hung on the wall... then we'll talk
There are all sorts of these. They are called "projector screens".
The problem is generally that you need a really large room to enjoy a 100" or larger "screen" ... well that and the room needs to be kept dark and the projector bulbs need to be cooled and that cooling is loud ...
not to mention the color quality and brightness are subpar. and the speakers are quiet and no where near the viewers.
plus, with the FaceTime camera built in, they could do some AMAZING Kinect like gestures. they revolutionized touchscreen, time to do gestures
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?
