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

Does any one wish Apple would just make a TV?

S

scaramoosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 30, 2014
859
931
I've been through many TVs last year trying them out and they all suck, the PPI being the main issue as they're all so low and all my TVs had dead pixels which sucks. I sent them all back in frustration, the latency was too high on them all, the backlighting on the LCDs sucked and I got an LG OLED BV6 55 inch or whatever it's called and my god the latency was like 100ms... not usable.

Apple always get displays right and they never go for gimmicks or false advertising like 1ms latency, 6 billion contrast ratio or 1000hz like you always see these days, which are false claims.


My only worry would be what connections they'd accept, for example it wouldn't be acceptable to have thunderbolt only or whatever.
 
My opinion is that Apple likely explored this market years ago, and decided that the highly competitive, fragmented, and low margin market was not for them.

Between number of screen sizes and various feature sets, let alone updates to full product lines every year, it would be (close to) impossible for a company with margin expectations like Apple to be successful in the space.

As for existing TV options sucking...I don't share that opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bart Kela, BeefCake 15, E.Lizardo and 3 others
No. How could they possibly get it right?

Which size screen is right? Even if they follow the lead of iPhone with 2 sizes, which 2 sizes of TV screen are right for everyone? Go to Best Buy or similar and take a look at the TV section. You'll see screen sizes ranging from gigantic to nearly tablet small... in a variety of cases to serve a variety of needs. Can Apple pick a perfect right size or two for everyone?

Which display technology is right for everyone? LCD, LED, OLED?

Would Apple include the variety of standard, non-proprietary jacks so that an Apple Television could work with non-Apple products? Quick imagination answer: "yes." But think about it- this is Apple.

Apple appears to desire hardware that needs to be upgraded frequently. How often do people toss out or sell their (1 or 2-year old) television to buy a newer one? How long do people generally stick with a television before replacing it?

Even ultra-thin TVs take up a LOT of storage space, especially if you make a wide variety of screen sizes. Where are these displayed in relatively compact Apple Stores? Where are they stored?

TV margins are said to be razor thin. But Apple seems to lose interest in even existing products that don't hit their margin targets (iPad Mini, Mac Mini, etc). How palatable would the "Apple Premium" be with a commoditized product like a television?

Differentiation- Apple buys their screens from other manufacturers that make TV screens. Those other players are going to pack the exact same screen into their own branded frame and probably price it substantially lower than Apple's price (with their 30-40%+ margin built in). Again, that's the EXACT SAME SCREEN, so it's going to be hard to spin the Apple screen as superior to the Samsung/LG/etc screen when both are the exact same.

Differentiation #2- the UI seems to have the most potential for an Apple touch. However, that is mostly presumed to be the concept of building :apple:TV in. Even the fourth generation :apple:TV UI (10 years in the making now) still gets plenty of gripes & complaints about even fundamentally-simple features such as fast forward, rewind and a variety of issues with the choices in remote design. But further, is an Apple Television going to have a significantly different UI than :apple:TV? If not, one can spend $100-$200 to buy the same "OS" as a little set-top box and use it with the TV they already have or any other new TV including one branded by someone else with the exact same screen.

Conceptually, the idea sounds great and seems to fit into the product mix... but it's the details that punch holes in the dream of it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JBaby, Mike Zucker, E.Lizardo and 2 others
scaramoosh said:
I've been through many TVs last year trying them out and they all suck, the PPI being the main issue as they're all so low and all my TVs had dead pixels which sucks. I sent them all back in frustration, the latency was too high on them all, the backlighting on the LCDs sucked and I got an LG OLED BV6 55 inch or whatever it's called and my god the latency was like 100ms... not usable.

Apple always get displays right and they never go for gimmicks or false advertising like 1ms latency, 6 billion contrast ratio or 1000hz like you always see these days, which are false claims.


My only worry would be what connections they'd accept, for example it wouldn't be acceptable to have thunderbolt only or whatever.
Click to expand...
The last display Apple made (27") was an lg panel ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeefCake 15
As much as I would like my AppleTV build into an actual television, the profit margin just isn't worth it for them. As for quality issues, they happen but aren't as common as some make them out to be. Many confuse design vs quality.

For example, the cheap 4K TCL Roku TV that I bought from Walmart for $428 plus tax seems to be a quality product based on design intent--no dead pixels (so far), no obvious weird gaps between plastic parts, etc. Sure the darkness level isn't as good as more expensive models, nor does it have the vibrancy of others that have HDR, but that was a design consideration to keep the price low. Based on my usage at home, I'd consider it a high quality product. I'm perfectly fine with the design compromises for the low price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E.Lizardo
scaramoosh said:
...I sent them all back in frustration, the latency was too high on them all, the backlighting on the LCDs sucked and I got an LG OLED BV6 55 inch or whatever it's called and my god the latency was like 100ms... not usable.
Click to expand...
What role does latency play in TVs?? Or are you looking for a huge computer display?
 
Last edited:
the PPI? Why are you concerned with that on a television? TV Resolutions are fixed values and defined by the industry... so the only way you're going to ever increase that is by shrinking the size of the TV you own... input lag, for gaming, is usually solved with more expensive sets from Samsung and Sony... in the 10s.
 
Richard8655 said:
Yes. Apple makes quality stuff, albeit expensive. In the meantime, Samsung does pretty well in my experience.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have no issues with our Samsung TV's, which are hooked up to two ATV4's respectively. I'm okay with the setup as is.
 
scaramoosh said:
I've been through many TVs last year trying them out and they all suck, the PPI being the main issue as they're all so low and all my TVs had dead pixels which sucks. I sent them all back in frustration, the latency was too high on them all, the backlighting on the LCDs sucked and I got an LG OLED BV6 55 inch or whatever it's called and my god the latency was like 100ms... not usable.

Apple always get displays right and they never go for gimmicks or false advertising like 1ms latency, 6 billion contrast ratio or 1000hz like you always see these days, which are false claims.


My only worry would be what connections they'd accept, for example it wouldn't be acceptable to have thunderbolt only or whatever.
Click to expand...

Toyota, Jack in-the-Box, Amazon, Jose's Burritos, Shell Oil and Oracle do not make TVs nor would they be good at at. Apple also does not make TVs and it does not make sense they do so. Content for streaming TV is a great direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
I don't know. Apple used to only make desktop computers. No one would have guessed they could do any different. But then they were later quite good and successful at making cell phones and tablets, which was new innovation for them.
 
I wouldn't buy a television made by Apple.

The idea of paying Apple's price for a television that will become obsolete because Apple deviated from industry standards, is not appealing.

I've never had to replace a television because it was no longer able to perform its function. But Apple would see to it that we'd have to.

I prefer the idea of the separate AppleTV box that can be replaced without throwing away my television.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
Apple only enters markets where it thinks it can bring something new to the table...and make lots of money.

The TV set business is not conducive to the latter.

With regard to the former, and based on ATV, I think it's fair to say that Jobs' oft-cited "revolutionary" ideas either passed with him, weren't that good to begin with, or stand no chance against the TV programming industry's apathy, if not resistance or hostility toward Apple encroaching on their space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
Eh, yes and no.

Apple displays are pricier and they don't make it anymore, just relying on 3rd party.

I highly doubt they'll do for TV. I won't be surprised if they announced their own TV. Here's to hoping.
 
I wouldn't buy one if they did, even if they pared down the price.

Because I have a lovely display panel of a particular size and an AV amplifier that feeds it. Both are designed to do specific jobs very well. Apple couldn't compete in a market where so many options are available.
 
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