I think the concept is you won't have to look at your remote at all. Worst case scenario, hold it up to your mouth to speak commands, provided Siri makes the necessary improvements.
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 to Include Motion Sensing Control and Touchscreen Remote?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the concept is you won't have to look at your remote at all. Worst case scenario, hold it up to your mouth to speak commands, provided Siri makes the necessary improvements.
In my opinion, we don't need another mp3 player, especially some overpriced thing from Apple.
Oh, wait, it's not still 2001 is it?
People keep mentioning a 4K display......why would anyone want one at this moment in time? Pointless and expensive and won't happen for the foreseeable future as no mainstream media supports it.
Touchpad type remote.....I can see an argument for it however I hope they make it robust enough for all the times it get's knocked onto the floor, sat on and such like - I don't want to treat the TV remote with "kitten gloves"
With all these supposed high end innovations which sound extremely costly I'm not sure Apple could justify a premium price. I tend to agree that the majority of people are happier paying a cheaper price for a panel and connecting their own devices. The display industry keeps innovating at a fast pace (4K will eventually become mainstream) that do you really want to pay a premium price for an Apple TV which will rapidly get left behind in terms of features and display quality? Would Apple sell enough units to justify the R&D / production costs?
Finally, Analysts are full of bull, they have been touting an Apple TV for years and just make up stuff and regurgitate speculation they read on these forums as some sort of qualified fact. TBH I would not be surprised if this Apple TV never materialised, however if it does I'm thinking this may be the one that burns Apples fingers.
Touchpad type remote.....I can see an argument for it however I hope they make it robust enough for all the times it get's knocked onto the floor, sat on and such like - I don't want to treat the TV remote with "kitten gloves"
With all these supposed high end innovations which sound extremely costly I'm not sure Apple could justify a premium price. I tend to agree that the majority of people are happier paying a cheaper price for a panel and connecting their own devices. The display industry keeps innovating at a fast pace (4K will eventually become mainstream) that do you really want to pay a premium price for an Apple TV which will rapidly get left behind in terms of features and display quality? Would Apple sell enough units to justify the R&D / production costs?
Finally, Analysts are full of bull, they have been touting an Apple TV for years and just make up stuff and regurgitate speculation they read on these forums as some sort of qualified fact. TBH I would not be surprised if this Apple TV never materialised, however if it does I'm thinking this may be the one that burns Apples fingers.
they need buttons on this. Even more than for games (which really need them), you don't want a touchscreen only remote. For selecting a macro, or pressing a channel logo, touch is fine (or for selecting a movie to watch). But quickly changing the channel, muting or changing the volume, you want to be able to blindly feel for a button and press it without having to unlock it or look down at a screen. Or talk.
So now Apple steal Kinect
A telescreen with a camera that constantly monitors your every movement isn't a new idea. George Orwell thought of it in 1948.
Ok then, how about explaining your point of view so that other children may understand. And I, though old and stupid, shall make my best attempt to also comprehend your superior intellectual insight.
I so -don't care- about an Apple TV. I am going to buy a TV based on picture quality, and not gimmicks like speaking to it or waving at it. Most of us leave a TV on an HDMI input and use the cable box or satellite box to control the source/channel that we watch. And many of us need a universal remote to control those boxes, the blu-ray and maybe receiver/stereo. I don't see this ever succeeding anymore than the AppleTV box currently does, which has pretty weak market penetration.
Samsung could well be the next Apple!
Look at the Gallaxy 3 phone it absolutely blows the iPhone out the water and I love my iPhone but never have I been more tempted to switch!
Thing is it's not just about the tech, Samsung will do it well and importantly do it cheaper...
Look at the Gallaxy 3 phone it absolutely blows the iPhone out the water and I love my iPhone but never have I been more tempted to switch!
Thing is it's not just about the tech, Samsung will do it well and importantly do it cheaper...
You're right. In fact, Samsung are so confident in the superiority of their technology, they really do believe the TVs will sell themselves. But just in case they don't, they promise you a 'behind-the-scenes' look at Angela Bellotte leaving little to the imagination… and all you need to do is 'like' Samsung's smart TV page on Facebook.
Did you throw a hissy fit in 2007 when you had to give up your CrackBerry for a touchscreen iPhone? I'm sure you at least bitched about it on Macrumors.com...
Dont knock it till you tried it.
Try doing any kind of password entry on it and you might disagree.
That said I don't see them making a touchpad just for this. Update the remote app. Perhaps this alleged remote is an update of the iPod touch to a slightly larger screen, I could buy that as a possibility
----------
Last April he said this tv would be out by the end of the year. As in 2011.
The public at large will not pay the premium Apple will charge for their* small capacity MP3 player. People want large storage for cheap.
The public at large will not pay ¢99 a song when they can get it free from Napster for free.
The public at large will not pay $500 for a phone when they can get one for $199.
The public at large will not pay $500 for a glorified iPod touch
Theres a reason Apple has $100 billion in the bank, dominates profit and market share in MP3 players, music stores, smart phones and tablets and you and I make stupid comments on the internet.
* There in, at or to that place or position
Their - belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned
You're right. In fact, Samsung are so confident in the superiority of their technology, they really do believe the TVs will sell themselves. But just in case they don't, they promise you a 'behind-the-scenes' look at Angela Bellotte leaving little to the imagination and all you need to do is 'like' Samsung's smart TV page on Facebook.
Personally i think the advert is quite entertaining and fun! For those who haven't seen this you can watch it here.
http://www.moreaboutadvertising.com...ve-motion-scores-for-samsung-and-betc-london/
Here's why the remote can't be an iPhone, iPod or iPad, why it can't have any other functionality other than communicating with the TV: if it does, it will never be there when you need it. You don't want a remote that your kids will be tempted to take next door to update their Facebook status or play games on.
So a dedicated device sounds about right.
I still don't buy the
TV-set rumors. It's a market that has almost no margins in the low price range and that they can't bring anything to in the higher price range that they couldn't do just as well with their little box. Actually all of the ideas floating around could be realized if the new miraculous device WAS just the remote with the addition of a little receiver to plug into any old TV you happen to own. What TV really needs, in my opinion, is a port to plug in a live TV signal. But this is me. I still think the iPad needs a stylus.
So a dedicated device sounds about right.
I still don't buy the
TV-set rumors. It's a market that has almost no margins in the low price range and that they can't bring anything to in the higher price range that they couldn't do just as well with their little box. Actually all of the ideas floating around could be realized if the new miraculous device WAS just the remote with the addition of a little receiver to plug into any old TV you happen to own. What TV really needs, in my opinion, is a port to plug in a live TV signal. But this is me. I still think the iPad needs a stylus.
When Steve Jobs wrote in his Biography that "I've finally cracked it!" I can't imagine him meaning this:
What would truly be revolutionary is a voice navigated TV, one that works well. You'd only need a tiny remote with a mic, and that's what I think is coming.
What would truly be revolutionary is a voice navigated TV, one that works well. You'd only need a tiny remote with a mic, and that's what I think is coming.
Does it work better than Uverse's app? They continually update it and break it. When it does work it is awesome, that just seems to never happen these days.
I love my current Apple TV. When I'm sitting in my living room with friends and want to show everyone this video on YouTube, I can just pull it up on my iPhone and send it to the big screen... effortlessly. Recently, I discovered Stream2Me and now I can pull up a movie (in any format really) on my iPhone/iPad and just send that straight to the big screen.
I wish Apple would keep with the same idea of an aTV being an extension of your Apple devices to your home theater. I'm not looking for a new television set, and tapping into that well developed market seems unnecessarily risky.
I wish Apple would keep with the same idea of an aTV being an extension of your Apple devices to your home theater. I'm not looking for a new television set, and tapping into that well developed market seems unnecessarily risky.