The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Television Set Rumors Revived, To Launch in 2011?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The advantages of Plasma over LCD (not even counting LED) have dwindled in recent years to slim to none. But they still make them so there's still a market for them. No denying that.
I agree and chose an LCD myself, but I'm amazed at how many people still argue vehemently for plasma.
Considering the unfortunate situation with Jobs' health, that's either a cruel prediction or was written without thinking about his personal situation.
apple can't win the tv market. apple can't even enter the tv market!
If you're gonna ask why, just compare those 2 products:
Apple cinema display 27"= 1000$
Sony bravia 46" = 900$.
19 more inches, and it's not only a monitor but a TV. And it's even cheaper.
If apple made a 32" tv they would charge it like 1100$. Who would buy that??
Or think if they made a 46" tv... Who will spend 3k$ on a tv??
If you're gonna ask why, just compare those 2 products:
Apple cinema display 27"= 1000$
Sony bravia 46" = 900$.
19 more inches, and it's not only a monitor but a TV. And it's even cheaper.
If apple made a 32" tv they would charge it like 1100$. Who would buy that??
Or think if they made a 46" tv... Who will spend 3k$ on a tv??
I'm glad if it turns out to be Samsung; I like their TVs the best. And I'd be excited to see what Steve Jobs' demanding standards would mean for the TV's performance. However, I've seen this Apple brand TV rumor so many, many times without result that I doubt it's true.
Don't think it will work. My 55 inch Sony has like 30 different icons to view movies, listen to music, etc.. Just have to hook it up to the Internet. As for blowing Netflix away, doubtful. Apple must be bored and looking for something else to try conquering. They should make the ATV better before trying this.
I just have to share something my brother just said about this. We were chatting via iChat, and he says "I don't want to know about apples tv. I just don't. It's going to have ears. It will have ears. This is exactly what steve jobs loves. He's going to come to the keynote and say "look at those ears, aren't they gorgeous?"
I personally found it absolutely hilarious! He did admit later that he was exaggerating a bit.
I personally found it absolutely hilarious! He did admit later that he was exaggerating a bit.
Why can't there be an Apple TV app for such televisions? I have a brand effin' new LED TV from Samsung with WiFi. Why can't Apple write an app that does the iTunes-type stuff and AirPlay through my existing TV instead of wanting me to buy another TV, which I sure as heck won't for a while.
You have to replace computers and phones every few years because they get outdated. Televisions usually will go for a decade. They keep getting better, but HD was out in 2000.
Absolutely not!
No way I'd touch it... and I own most Apple products.
But that's EXACTLY why I wouldn't touch it. I own the original Apple TV as well as the "new" Apple TV. The original Apple TV is basically a special edition of the Mac Mini designed to deal with the TV content and not expose a Mac OS X desktop. There are people who have modded the Apple TV so it just boots OS X. There's absolutely no reason why the original Apple TV (which costs 3-4 times as much as the 'new' Apple TV) can't have all the features of the 'new' Apple TV.
Essentially Apple abandoned the platform, refused to issue any more software updates for it, and then expect their users to all rush out and buy the new product when there's nothing wrong with the old product... it just needed a software update to make it fully compatible.
Considering that a TV should last more than 2 years... I think you'd be crazy to buy an TV with integrated "Apple TV" knowing that Apple will abandon the thing on a whim and leave all their customers with a really expensive paper weight.
No... I'll be buying a TV that is _only_ a TV and I'll be connecting a separate non-integrated set top box.
No way I'd touch it... and I own most Apple products.
But that's EXACTLY why I wouldn't touch it. I own the original Apple TV as well as the "new" Apple TV. The original Apple TV is basically a special edition of the Mac Mini designed to deal with the TV content and not expose a Mac OS X desktop. There are people who have modded the Apple TV so it just boots OS X. There's absolutely no reason why the original Apple TV (which costs 3-4 times as much as the 'new' Apple TV) can't have all the features of the 'new' Apple TV.
Essentially Apple abandoned the platform, refused to issue any more software updates for it, and then expect their users to all rush out and buy the new product when there's nothing wrong with the old product... it just needed a software update to make it fully compatible.
Considering that a TV should last more than 2 years... I think you'd be crazy to buy an TV with integrated "Apple TV" knowing that Apple will abandon the thing on a whim and leave all their customers with a really expensive paper weight.
No... I'll be buying a TV that is _only_ a TV and I'll be connecting a separate non-integrated set top box.
Is anyone else here a little worried that Apple is starting to become 90's Apple where they lost focus, picking too many battles at the same time?
That's a rather poor assessment. The current Apple TV has sold more until than the old versions combined since launch. Though, not that those were selling like hot cakes or anything either. Though, just because a version of IOS operates that Apple TV, it's rather silly to try to compare it to the sale of iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches.
I agree though... add more features. An option to buy movies and shows (downloaded to your mac) from the Apple TV would be a great start, and more 3rd party content like the Roku box. I'm fine with streaming from my computer, but a DVR function is what it really needs. Too many boxes
Yes and no. No, because I think they can pull this all off. Yes, because Apple still keeps things trim on a staffing end. For example, delaying the last 2 versions of the Mac OS because they were behind with the latest version of IOS, so they pulled the mac os team to work on that. They need to dedicate the right number of resources to the projects they have. It's not like they don't have the money to grow. This is where I think things get botched, like the new version of Final Cut Pro. Released a little bit premature, and well after an update should have been released... they can blame it on being a re-write, but I think the team working on it was short on resources.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its all in the software; in this case programming. Unless Apple launches a Netflix/Redbox service with prices to match I don't see anything going anywhere. As it is compare how long it takes to launch a movie on iTunes compared to Netflix on a slower connection. That alone is hurting iTunes the most.
I think it's a great idea and i'd buy one. It's like the final piece of my Apple ecosystem. No reason why it couldn't come with SSD storage, obviously wi-fi, and even TV-based web.
IMHO, Apple's next move after iPod, iPhone and iPad can't be anything else but a TV, more exactly a multifunction living-room hub: a giant iPad featuring the functions of WiFi base station, AirPlay, perhaps a DVD drive, and obviously, access to the iTunes ecosystem.
However, I don't see it happening as soon as 2011. Apple isn't going to launch it before they get sweet deals with a couple leading cable/satellite operators and Hollywood.
Designing the product itself is not the hardest part. It's all about the content and business-model.
It also makes sense that Samsung would be the best choice for a hardware partner in such a project.
Actually, I have a theory that the intent behind the current legal battle Apple is leading against Samsung is to sway the latter away from Android in order to make Samsung an alternate outlet for the iOS ecosystem.
However, I don't see it happening as soon as 2011. Apple isn't going to launch it before they get sweet deals with a couple leading cable/satellite operators and Hollywood.
Designing the product itself is not the hardest part. It's all about the content and business-model.
It also makes sense that Samsung would be the best choice for a hardware partner in such a project.
Actually, I have a theory that the intent behind the current legal battle Apple is leading against Samsung is to sway the latter away from Android in order to make Samsung an alternate outlet for the iOS ecosystem.
There's nothing wrong with Plasmas. They look great. They work perfectly fine. They suck a lot of juice though. If you are energy conscience they are not the best buy. If that is not something you care about, you can find great deals on them. Apple would probably never do a plasma TV though.
You do realize that plasma sets have also made gains to right? They have updated the tech behind them ever year just as LCDs. There are still advantages and disadvantages for both. None of the old shortcomings exist in plasmas either (ghosting, burn in, etc.) and they were always superior with black leves and refresh rates. Some of the new Panasonics have gotten recommendations on tech sites over some of the LED's. It just depends.
And most people watch their TVs from an arm's length, so a touchscreen makes perfect sense.
Sorry, but selling things at cost never has been and never will be Apple's business model. Apple markets its wares as premium products and prices them accordingly, generally with a 40% mark-up to cover the costs of development and marketing. This strategy simply won't work in the TV market (there is no TV equivalent of OS X versus Windows Vista, in order for Apple to get traction from product differentiation).