Apple TV including the TV

[npmacuser5]

Hoping for this from Apple TV for the last couple of years:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XD4SXW...95f-c1e7ad71f5bc&pf_rd_r=7HHX8KDBYZZ8XJ1G002W
Actually not bad. Pricing, functionality, features, are more then acceptable.

 

[E.Lizardo]

Not me. The monitor will far outlast the "Apple TV" part of it. I've had my tv through 4 generations of Apple TV. If it had been built in,I'd have a TV with a built in obsolete Atv,and I'd STILL have the Atv 4 plugged into it.

 

[0007776]

I'll happily take an extra box that can be upgraded without throwing away the screen. My TV does have a built in smart part, but I just ignore that in favor of an Apple TV plugged into it.

 

[jdag]

Less than zero interest in something like this. I think the beauty of the streaming boxes is the choice and ability to have multiple devices based on content needs.

I completely understand that you could still use a streaming box on a smart TV, but I have no interest in having more software that needs updating and could, down the line, affect performance of the core TV system.

And when I say "less than zero" I mean that I would hate for my friends/family to get these TVs as I am the defacto support system for many people, and I don't want to have to deal with yet another set of questions!

 

[npmacuser5]

Not me. The monitor will far outlast the "Apple TV" part of it. I've had my tv through 4 generations of Apple TV. If it had been built in,I'd have a TV with a built in obsolete Atv,and I'd STILL have the Atv 4 plugged into it.

Question: Following this logic, why would anyone buy an iMac?

 

[vipergts2207]

Like others, I prefer the separate device. Especially since I have an A/V receiver, I plug the device in there instead of relying on ARC to pass audio. Apple would probably charge through the roof for an actual TV anyway and it potentially wouldn't even have as good of a picture as higher-end Sony's, Samsung's, and LG's.

As far as these specific TV's go, Element TV's are low-end junk.

 

[npmacuser5]

Like others, I prefer the separate device. Especially since I have an A/V receiver, I plug the device in there instead of relying on ARC to pass audio. Apple would probably charge through the roof for an actual TV anyway and it potentially wouldn't even have as good of a picture as higher-end Sony's, Samsung's, and LG's.

As far as these specific TV's go, Element TV's are low-end junk.

Agree, not promoting an Amazon product, suggesting the concept. Apple would not produce a junk product.

 

[s15119]

No thanks

 

[vipergts2207]

Agree, not promoting an Amazon product, suggesting the concept. Apple would not produce a junk product.

No doubt. I do think it would probably be priced too high though.

 

[26139]

Question: Following this logic, why would anyone buy an iMac?

Because we use TVs far differently than we use computers.

 

[cynics]

Compared to high end TV's that thing is a piece of junk. Seems like just a means to an end, get an Amazon store in your house.

I don't want to sound like an elitist because I'm sure that TV is fine however Apple would need to bring MUCH more to the table if they expect simply not be criticized let alone make sales.

The TV market is dominated by the actual manufacturers. Apple can't be competitive against the people they need to build the TV for them. I believe Samsung and LG are built 100% in house, if not 100% its really damn close. These are also the companies that define the standards of the market too.

Pricing drops off way to fast for Apple products as well.

Less then a year ago I bought a Samsung KS9000. Admittedly at the time the 2016 LG OLED had what a appeared to me as a better picture....not by much by enough to notice. I mention the LG because I feel that is what Apple would need to bring to the table. At that time the OEM suggested retail for the LG was 6500 dollars, now that same TV is ~4000 dollars. I don't think Apple could order TVs from their manufacturers accurately enough to stay competitive with price drops like that from a manufacturer that can essentially build to order.

Plus TV tech evolves too quickly. One years its LCD, next its LED, then different types of LED, then OLED, 3-D, HDR 10, Dolby Vision, etc etc.

Point is I feel this would happen....... Apple would release a TV with ok'ish specs at a too high of price. 6 months later the specs would be pretty poor and price WAY to high. It would sit on store shelves for over a year before it finally saw an update and the same process would repeat.

Also I feel the buyers market its fairly divided. People that want the best, people that want the cheapest (or just don't care). And I don't think Apple could satisfy either group.

Just my 2 cents anyway. Admittedly an all aluminum space gray iTV would be an interesting thing to see...lol

 

[ActionableMango]

Question: Following this logic, why would anyone buy an iMac?

Because it's the only Mac between a $500 Mini and a $3500 Mac Pro. A LOT of people would love to buy a "monitorless iMac".

 

[CarlJ]

Because it's the only Mac between a $500 Mini and a $3500 Mac Pro. A LOT of people would love to buy a "monitorless iMac".

Very much this. If Apple made a non-Pro non-mini just-plain "Mac", say a 6-8" cube, with no monitor, a desktop level CPU and slots for the GPU, RAM, and storage, they'd have to beat the resulting crowd of enthusiasts back with a stick. (Mass market might go for the iMac, but gamers, developers, enthusiasts, etc., would jump on a headless Mac.)

Apple's monitors have traditionally been really nice. An Apple-branded television would no doubt be gorgeous as well. But if you buy a TV that'll be great for many years (my TV is going on 8 years old and I'm not in a huge hurry to replace it), with a built-in AppleTV that'll be great for, say, two years, then very soon you'll have great screens with obsolete guts. Many people would not be happy replacing their otherwise excellent TV every year to just to get improved guts. They could make an Apple-branded television with some sort of slot for an upgradeable/replaceable AppleTV, but then that isn't far removed from the current situation with just using HDMI.

I'd venture a guess that, rather than slotting in an Apple-TV-on-a-card into an Apple television, they might simply go for some expanded communication channel between the screen and the AppleTV for better integration (so the AppleTV can always be in complete control right from boot time, and such). They could perhaps do this over the existing ethernet facilities present in HDMI, or by expanding the HDMI standard.

Alternatively, I could see Apple releasing what is essentially a very nice 50"/80" (or whatever size) monitor, with no tuners, antenna, or cable inputs, and just one HDMI port (or some sort of improved HDMI port), and likely with a very nice built-in sound-bar equivalent, designed to be your new complete TV experience when combined with an AppleTV (with the $100-$200 ATV being replaced every few years while the $1000+ screen sticks around).

Imagine a wall-mounted Apple screen with six speakers at the four corners and top/bottom (arranged like the pockets on a pool table), similar to the four speakers an iPad Pro has, along with an optional subwoofer and surround speakers all talking to the monitor over WiFi (great sound for daily use, optional theater experience for movie night). They could also incorporate a camera and mic, for FaceTime/video conferencing, and the mic could work for Siri in the living room without the remote. These are all components you could put in a "monitor" and they'd be good-if-not-great for many years, while the control box, the AppleTV, can get replaced as technology improves.