Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best Buy Dreams Up a $1499 42-Inch 'Apple HDTV' for Customer Feedback

The price is alright if it has 2560x1440 resolution. I'll gladly pay $2000+ for 55" with that kind of resolution as well.

Let's not forget Samsung's overpriced crappy LED TVs. They are all glorified Edge-Lit LED that costs much more than other competitors. Not to mention the clouding issues and major input lag caused by inferior Edge-Lit tech.
 
AidenShaw said:
  • TOS - HDMI audio for MCE
  • HD Radio

So, at 7 inputs I'm pushing the limits of the crossbar switch.
Click to expand...
So, Win Media Center doesn't output over HDMI? Or is that some other acronym?

----------
pearvsapple said:
Let's not forget Samsung's overpriced crappy LED TVs. They are all glorified Edge-Lit LED that costs much more than other competitors. Not to mention the clouding issues and major input lag caused by inferior Edge-Lit tech.
Click to expand...
Seriously, man. That's not true, and we've been discussing it in this very thread.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
It's not the same to compare the tiny pool of people that might happen to have one of the few sets with HDMI MHL to the big pool of people that probably have at least a 720p HDTV-ready TV right now.
Click to expand...
You're the one harping on HDMI MHL. I didn't mention it.
I _did_mention that a separate power supply could provide what the TV doesn't if needed.
I'd speculate that if he buys a new HDTV, it's because his old CRT has conked out- not because he is following Apple innovations.
Click to expand...
Curious speculation. Lots of people upgrade from functioning equipment because the new stuff is distinctly better. My old CRT still worked; upgraded anyway.
Don't you think Roku would have gone that way if they could get enough power out of a regular HDMI port?
Click to expand...
You're the one talking about Roku. I didn't mention it.
Apple is getting pretty darned good at getting ahead in the power-savings game. If that 55mA is a guaranteed minimum for an HDMI port, I can think of several ways to persuade it to do the job - especially with a billion dollars of R&D money available to pull it off.
 
I'm not a speculator so don't get the firing squad on me if I'm wrong, but lets base this off of their already established computer line.

The iMac will be considered the all in one TV while the Mac Mini will be the Apple TV. A base iMac costs $1200 with other fees and taxes not included. A Mac Mini is now $599 without taxes and other fees. Whats the difference? Less powerful hardware meaning less features. That and with the Mac Mini you need to buy a monitor and accessories such as a keyboard and mouse to be able to use it. So the iMac(TV set) would be a better buy for anyone serious about their Apple products while the Mac Mini(Apple TV) would be the cheaper economy option for people who already have decent TV sets.
 
Mr. McMac said:
An Apple TV will probably be overpriced and no better than a Samsung
Click to expand...

In reality, there's a good chance that Samsung would be chosen to make the Apple Television for Apple and stick the Apple logo on it instead of Samsung.

Then, in the same stores (except Apple stores) where you can buy the Apple Television, the exact same screen will sit there branded Samsung. My guess is that the price for the Samsung version would be about 35% less than the price for the Apple version.

If you think the legal battles would absolutely deter the above from including Samsung, slug in LG, Sharp, etc. Point being: an Apple Television will be built by one of the television makers we know well. And I bet they'll roll it out under their own brand as well, probably at about 35% less. Buy an :apple:TV3 to go with it and enjoy the exact same hardware (guts)+software combination while keeping several hundred dollars in your pocket. "Designed in California" and an Apple logo is all that's left if the software can also be purchased in separate, set top box.

If you need the Apple logo to be happy, pry off the manufacturer brand and stick on one of those Apple bumper stickers they include with computer purchases. Then, it's just "designed in California".
 
All you guys that say the Apple TV is too expensive you guys are wrong. Look at what it is going to have.... It will run just like an iMac there for the price is reasonable for the product. You want to complain about a price, complain about the price of the new OLED TVS...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Anyone know what manufacturer makes the current apple displays? This apple tv will be on the scale of a larger apple display I presume? Retinal display maybe?
 
Buckeyestar said:
Or you could just use a PS3. No "high-end name brand" 42" would sell quite that low unless it was black Friday.
Click to expand...

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Infinia-42LV5500-42-Inch-LED-LCD/dp/B004OOVIEU/ref=dp_cp_ob_e_title_2

$719 for a high end name brand 42incher internet ready with apps. Apple has to come within $400 bucks of that to compete in my opinion if the only difference is the apple-y-ness and the presence of a camera. That would make it an $1119 product, or maybe $1099, although that reminds me of taxes.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I just keep wondering if the Apple TV won't be some kind of a cross between the current ATV2 and a Mac Mini. I still don't see it as an actual TV because the built in obsolescence is not there.
 
JAT said:
Uh, the 6500 series is not even full backlit, you need 7000 or higher for that. Unless there is some other 6500 series.
Click to expand...

Actually, none of Samsung's current TVs have full array local dimming LED backlight. They're all edge lit. The 7000 has micro dimming and 8000 micro dimming plus. Only Sony's XBR series have full array local dimming.

On a sidenote, lots of people really have no idea what a high end TV costs. Anything less than a 7000 for samsung is not high end. Sony's high end are NX and HX. XBR is ultra high end.
 
Apple has always gotten away with the higher price point because of their superior product and design. Not sure that it is justified here?
 
Dbrown said:
Actually, none of Samsung's current TVs have full array local dimming LED backlight. They're all edge lit. The 7000 has micro dimming and 8000 micro dimming plus. Only Sony's XBR series have full array local dimming.

On a sidenote, lots of people really have no idea what a high end TV costs. Anything less than a 7000 for samsung is not high end. Sony's high end are NX and HX. XBR is ultra high end.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see it, now. They're only halfway there. Somehow, that seems fitting for Samsung.

Sony's high end still don't look all that great. If I was in the market, I'd look at plasma. There's just something wrong with Sony these days. They're even dropping down in the projector market, where they've often ruled.
 
Having a hard time not snickering at the people who think that $1499 is too much for a 42" TV. If and when Apple releases branded HDTVs, iFans will be wishing that Best Buy's prediction was accurate.

Since Apple tries its damndest not to do anything half-assed, you can bet that an Apple HDTV will be ultra high end, incorporating whatever TV techno-gimmicks of the day are available for contrast, color range, etc...

A more likely price structure is:

32" - $1499
42" - $1999
47" - $2499
55" - $2999

Though, honestly, I can see them releasing three models rather than four.
 
Eriden said:
Having a hard time not snickering at the people who think that $1499 is too much for a 42" TV.
Click to expand...

It is too much. Far too much. Perfectly good alternatives at half the price. Which was not and is not the case with iPod or iPhone or iPad or MBAs or any of the other terrific Apple products.

The "TV" is not, and hasn't been the problem, not for a very long time. The problem is the cable company/set top box.

If Apple is tackling anything, it's that.

Since Apple tries its damndest not to do anything half-assed, you can bet that an Apple HDTV will be ultra high end, incorporating whatever TV techno-gimmicks of the day are available for contrast, color range, etc...
Click to expand...

They don't even bother doing that for their mission-critical, targeted-at-pros, yet competitively priced ACD. No reason to think they'll do any different for a "TV".
 
jlc1978 said:
I think you missed my point. I agree Apple goes for the higher end; but the question is "Is there enough of a market for an Apple TV to be a product that has any significant impact on Apple's financials, or is it juts a hobbyist market like the iTV." I think it's the latter, and Apple may dabble in it but it won't be anything of importance to them.

I also think your computer analogy is invalid - people buy computers to fit a specific need; which generally means a specific OS. With a TV, for most buyers, once you get beyond a certain quality/price point everything else isn't with the added cost. A better picture may be worth an extra $100 but won't be worth an extra $500 for most buyers. For some it may, but is that market large enough to make an Apple TV a success like the iPhone or the iPad. I doubt it.
Click to expand...


True. But I don't think Apple would be catering to the general market with their TV. Then again, Apple priced the iPad way lower than everyone expected...and lower than the competition could easily match. They may price their TV's at a more "general consumer friendly level" than they do with their computers.

And I disagree about the reason people buy Apple computers. A major reason to buy them is OSX. However, the design of the computers, themselves, also plays a large factor for many people. Then again, (for me) I would only buy Apple computers, no matter how it looked.
 
sterlingindigo said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Anyone know what manufacturer makes the current apple displays? This apple tv will be on the scale of a larger apple display I presume? Retinal display maybe?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you understand the cost of scaling up such a thing. Going from iphone to everything with that kind of resolution would take massive design time. You're talking years, not months, and there aren't any estimates of significant resolution increases among larger displays for a couple more years.

Eriden said:
Since Apple tries its damndest not to do anything half-assed, you can bet that an Apple HDTV will be ultra high end, incorporating whatever TV techno-gimmicks of the day are available for contrast, color range, etc...
Click to expand...

Displays aren't really a strong point for Apple. The iphone display is okay, but quite often it's expensive hardware with half the implementation seen in other solutions. Apple has never been one to put out the best specs. There's no reason for this to be different. They emphasize aesthetics and simplicity, which annoys me at the times those things come at the expense of control.


damir00 said:
They don't even bother doing that for their mission-critical, targeted-at-pros, yet competitively priced ACD. No reason to think they'll do any different for a "TV".
Click to expand...

Bleh a little off topic, but the ACD isn't really targeted at pros. There are different areas in terms of professional display needs. You've got people like cad users (not so much about color, but all about fine detail), those who work on color grading, graphic designers, etc. When they went to the 27" cinema display as a followup to the somewhat aging display line, it seemed more like a step away from these markets on a number of different levels.
 
Antares said:
And I disagree about the reason people buy Apple computers. A major reason to buy them is OSX. However, the design of the computers, themselves, also plays a large factor for many people. Then again, (for me) I would only buy Apple computers, no matter how it looked.
Click to expand...

While design certainly is a factor, I doubt design alone drives the purchase decision. And therein is the rub for an Apple TV - can they build a compelling enough experience (as they did with the iPad/iPhone/iPod) that makes a premium priced product worth the price to enough consumers for it to be a hit? If design alone sold TV's B&O would be a major player - but they aren't. They have a niche, and they make great stuff, but they are an afterthought in the market. Right now, a TV is really just a content delivery system so the question is how can Apple improve on that in a way competitors can't easily match?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back