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 to Launch 3 HDTV Models by March 2012?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As much as I'd love this, the channels would not.
I watch predominantly Food Network, TBS and some "SyFy." You don't think ESPN benefits by cramming 13 channels down my throat as part of my "digital starter package" - the minimum requirement for a DVR through Comcast?
No one will go for this, not the provioders, not the networks, no one.
I doubt even Apple and Steve Jobs' RDF will be able to negotiate any differently...
-Clive
iOS gaming is entertaining? Sure for 5 minute stints on the bus, but it cant compete with the 360 or PS3 (or PC for that matter)
...and how does this content get to your TV? Cable most likely as DSL is much less available even in larger metro areas. Cable completely blankets the area while DSL coverage has holes in it all over the place.
Outside of showrooms, I have yet to ever see anyone anywhere actually use PIP. Ever. Period.
It cuts out a corner of the screen for the person watching the main show, and is without sound for anyone. Back "in the day" I could have seen a use for it in waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on, but I rarely see people watching TV where they have to sit through commercials anymore.
Also, I rarely see people use any kind of a tuner inside their TV. They will use the satellite box or the cable box, but rarely the built-in TV tuner. Most cable/sat broadcasts can't be deciphered by the standard built-in tuner anymore to begin with, so what's the use of even having it (aside from the FCC requirements to include it on every TV set of course). You can do PIP with multiple inputs just as easily as from two tuners.
I wonder if Apple would ever get into the cable/satellite box world. If they broke into that line of products they would literally be able to AppleTV in every livingroom that has cable/satellite. And maybe they could fix the extremely crappy Comcast interface and improve on AT&T's Uverse interface (which isn't as bad as Comcast's).
TV Lifespans are the Key
Currently, I have a 9-year-old TV set (bought in 2002). It's not a top-of-the-line HDTV, but it does 720p quite well. Before that, the "big TV" of the house had been an energy-sucking CRT which we'd had for about 3 years before trading up. Before that we didn't really have a "big TV", but a succession of small sets. Let's say an average of 3-5 years replacement cycle, although that seems artificially low. Aside from major developments (HDTV / flat-screen LCD / size), we would have been happy with the previous CRT much longer; I don't see those kinds of improvements in the short-term horizon (1080p doesn't make much of a difference to me, and 3D is a non-starter unless it was glasses-free, and even then half our house gets headaches from all current 3D tech).
My parents' TV set when I was growing up lasted from the mid-70's to the mid-80's, then another one that went from late-80's through about 2005, when they got a new HDTV. That's about a 15-year average replacement cycle. They are obviously inferior consumers.
When I look at an AppleTV and compare the box from two years ago to the one today, there is no comparison. The current one is just as capable (if not moreso), on less power, and at significantly less cost. Setting aside cost, though, would I be happy with a 3-5 year old AppleTV sitting in my living room? How about a 10-year old device? 15?
Looking at the "features" of the TV set sitting in our living room: we haven't used any of them in 7-8 years. They were "neat" at the time of purchase, but were quickly eclipsed both in "newness" and in pure functionality (the built-in TV Guide interface doesn't even have a backing service anymore, and was quite quickly eclipsed by a superior interface from DirecTV, and of course now we don't give a crap about it anyways as our "TV Guide" is a web site with links to all the shows we watch plus iTunes).
Do we really think that we'd be happy with even tomorrow's AppleTV hardware features a decade on?
I don't know. I lean towards "absolutely not" although Apple has a way of selling us on disposability of previously long-term components (ex, I now have two iMacs in the house where really I'd prefer a kick-ass LCD screen attached to a consumer-priced computer where the computer can get upgraded every 3-4 years and the screen lasts 5-10).
Are HDTVs as disposable as AppleTV boxes? Will an AppleTV TV have forward-enough thinking components that it won't look like a waste of money two years later?
Currently, I have a 9-year-old TV set (bought in 2002). It's not a top-of-the-line HDTV, but it does 720p quite well. Before that, the "big TV" of the house had been an energy-sucking CRT which we'd had for about 3 years before trading up. Before that we didn't really have a "big TV", but a succession of small sets. Let's say an average of 3-5 years replacement cycle, although that seems artificially low. Aside from major developments (HDTV / flat-screen LCD / size), we would have been happy with the previous CRT much longer; I don't see those kinds of improvements in the short-term horizon (1080p doesn't make much of a difference to me, and 3D is a non-starter unless it was glasses-free, and even then half our house gets headaches from all current 3D tech).
My parents' TV set when I was growing up lasted from the mid-70's to the mid-80's, then another one that went from late-80's through about 2005, when they got a new HDTV. That's about a 15-year average replacement cycle. They are obviously inferior consumers.
When I look at an AppleTV and compare the box from two years ago to the one today, there is no comparison. The current one is just as capable (if not moreso), on less power, and at significantly less cost. Setting aside cost, though, would I be happy with a 3-5 year old AppleTV sitting in my living room? How about a 10-year old device? 15?
Looking at the "features" of the TV set sitting in our living room: we haven't used any of them in 7-8 years. They were "neat" at the time of purchase, but were quickly eclipsed both in "newness" and in pure functionality (the built-in TV Guide interface doesn't even have a backing service anymore, and was quite quickly eclipsed by a superior interface from DirecTV, and of course now we don't give a crap about it anyways as our "TV Guide" is a web site with links to all the shows we watch plus iTunes).
Do we really think that we'd be happy with even tomorrow's AppleTV hardware features a decade on?
I don't know. I lean towards "absolutely not" although Apple has a way of selling us on disposability of previously long-term components (ex, I now have two iMacs in the house where really I'd prefer a kick-ass LCD screen attached to a consumer-priced computer where the computer can get upgraded every 3-4 years and the screen lasts 5-10).
Are HDTVs as disposable as AppleTV boxes? Will an AppleTV TV have forward-enough thinking components that it won't look like a waste of money two years later?
From the same Apple that tells you 720p is HD?
Umm, I'm pretty sure it's the FCC, SMPTE, and ACSP that are telling you video with 720 lines of resolution vertically is to be called "HDTV". Hell, Australia allows something like 570 lines to be called "HDTV".
If you want 1080p HDTV, you need to look for something saying "1080p", and make sure you don't confuse that with "1080i" which is worse than 720p in most cases where HDTV matters. Apple has never marketed their 720p streams as 1080p.
I would think Sony and Samsung probably have more to throw around.
Sony: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/11q1_sony.pdf
(Sony has $8.145B as of Q1 2011)
Samsung: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsams...report/downloads/2010/SECAR2010_Eng_Final.pdf
(Samsung had $8.94B as of EOY 2010)
Apple: $76B
Apple has close to an order of magnitude more cash available than either Sony or Samsung. It also has significantly less debt (none) and very few hard-asset liabilities compared to either of them.
Apple can easily win a war of attrition against both of them. At the same time.
That said, I still don't think it's a good target for Apple.
I don't think it makes any sense for Apple to try to introduce higher resolutions. HD TVs have already passed the "Retina" display threshold. If you don't believe me then try out this display calculator that I found. Individual pixels on a 50" 1080p display are not distinguishable from 6.5 feet/2 m away. Do many people sit closer than that to a 50" TV?
You've also got to consider that Apple is totally committed to internet delivery of content. 4K video isn't going to fit down the average broadband connection any time soon.
High-resolution displays are important on phones, tablets and (to a less extent) computers because you use them at a close distance. TVs are viewed from across a room and hence don't need such high PPI values. My prediction is that 4K for consumer TVs will be a flop in exactly the same way as Super Audio CD and DVD Audio. People won't buy the technology because 99% of them won't be able to see any difference in quality.
Huh?
But how can simply building a TV add to the simplification? It would still need to support existing peripherals, all of which require the myriad of wires, ports etc. that cause the mess. Not really arguing, just honestly wondering if I'm missing something here....
But how can simply building a TV add to the simplification? It would still need to support existing peripherals, all of which require the myriad of wires, ports etc. that cause the mess. Not really arguing, just honestly wondering if I'm missing something here....
Please don't be so dismissive. It is possible for a sound reach your ears from behind without the original source such as speakers being behind you, if the sound in confined to a beam and bounced/reflected off a wall behind you.
This sometimes happens naturally outside, when a sound reflects off a mountain or large building. You may only hear the reflection if the sound's path from the source to your ear is blocked by a building, a hill or so on.
While most sound bars use a variety of methods to simulate surround sound, Yamaha's YSPs produce sound beams that bounce off side and back walls of a room and can make sound reach your ears from behind. You do need walls to make YSPs work, of course.
Yamaha licenses the technology from Cambridge Mechatronics Ltd (CML, originally called 1... Ltd). The technique involves having one or more rows of transducers (small loudspeakers -- Yamaha calls them beam drivers). The sound beam can then be directed at an angle. This is done by delaying the signal from one side of the row(s) to the other, to build up a wave front travelling in the desired direction. By 'curving' the delays and wave fronts, it's even possible to focus the beam.
Here's Yamaha's diagram of how the beam is built up and directed:
With a large number of transducers you can get a strong beam effect, but it can become very expensive. Pioneer was the first to market with a product (Pioneer PDSP-1) which had 254 transducers, but it cost about $40K.
I think Yamaha's YSPs vary from about 16 to 40 transducers and are clearly much more affordable. Although many people may prefer the sound of a good conventional surround sound system, most people hearing a good digital sound projector, such as Yamaha's YSP-4100, are surprised and impressed with the surround sound effect from a single unit in front of them, (though they are expensive and you'll most probably need a subwoofer). If you don't believe me look at the reviews of the YSP-4100.
Yamaha's diagram showing the surround-sound beams:
For a better explanation and another diagram go to CML's 'How it works' web page.
Some TVs manufacturers (eg, Mitsubishi, Grundig and Beko) are also using this technology.
Apple making TV's would be like Apple making camera's, printers and other periphreals. Let them stick to the main stuff...Only TV I could see Apple making would be a TV with support for 4k resolution with a 16:9 ratio so we can really get our high def on! Of course no consumer content is ever released in anything higher than 1080p or even 2k but it would be very future proof. Oh and side note screw 3D tv's, made me dizzy yesterday :O.
I've been doing that for a while.. I have a Logitech HD webcam on top of my TV, connected to my beautiful HTPC in an awesome Silverstone LC-16 case.
We skype friends and family overseas regularly on it. Great for showing off our wriggling newborn.
Or if 2 people want to listen.
Weird, I have 2 of them. Well, 3 actually, but one is unplugged due to some problems.