Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Foxconn Accelerating Sharp LCD Panel Orders to Launch Apple Television for Holiday Season?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My iMac is still functioning perfectly, but I'm one OSX upgrade from the system being obsolete. Why would the TV be any different from Apple's philosophy on their computers? Hardware is what Apple has to sell, so it's in their best interest to force obsolescence for their products.
I do think it's amazing that some of you know the form that Apple TVs will take before they are even announced. How in the world do you know that you will be able to swap out the "core"?? What if it's all integrated like a big iMac? If it's just the "core" that's going to be swappable, why not keep the same form they currently have and use any TV with HDMI input?
I would prefer the Apple tv be updated with app capabilities, not sure if I want to sink in money for a appletv when I'd prefer a 100$ box that I can purchase multiples of and have access to my content anywhere in the house
They will if Apple's TV is smarter than the 'Smart TV':
"Siri, show me the latest episode of The Walking Dead."
"The latest episode of The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' started streaming ten minutes ago. Would you like to watch it in progress, or from the beginning?"
"From the beginning."
"Showing The Walking Dead, - Season 3, Episode 4, titled 'I can't believe you're still alive' from the beginning."
nah... I'm pretty sure this person will hold the record on negative votes for quite some time
They are now up to -392 is there a price for this?
----------
I see your idea, but realistic Apple can't bring out a 1080p it would be the biggest flop of all time. No Apple has to bring out something that jumps anyone else and have the price to turn the world upside down. But with the interface they have right now I see no benefit vs my 60 in samsung plasma (terrible interface, great picture) We and interface that takes us to the next level of TV nirvana. Another things is they need to remove completely the cable boxes for ever.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
They are now up to -392 is there a price for this?
Maybe if it gets to -400 their head will explode?
Time for something new?
Remember when computers were pretty much all the same: boring beige boxes and clunky as hell? The Macintosh was a little different but not radically so, and then along came the iMac…
Apple has grown rich incorporating elegance as integral to its design solutions. As far as I can see, TV is ripe for a similar overhaul. I have yet to find a TV truly worthy of its place in my living room, aesthetically speaking. And not all of us want a cinema-style screen taking over half the living room. Personally I'd like to strike a balance, as with my other stuff that's in there. A twenty-four inch TV would suit me fine. And I would like it to look beautiful before it's switched on. Of course, I also want a great picture, great sound, easy to use, and any other bells and whistles Apple cares to add that enhance the overall experience.
However, it's my living room, so I want the TV to earn its place there in every way. How it looks as a piece of 'furniture' is very important to me and, I hope, lots more people. Screen size options for those with a more modest requirement would be welcome, certainly in my home. I hope Apple understands this.
Remember when computers were pretty much all the same: boring beige boxes and clunky as hell? The Macintosh was a little different but not radically so, and then along came the iMac…
Apple has grown rich incorporating elegance as integral to its design solutions. As far as I can see, TV is ripe for a similar overhaul. I have yet to find a TV truly worthy of its place in my living room, aesthetically speaking. And not all of us want a cinema-style screen taking over half the living room. Personally I'd like to strike a balance, as with my other stuff that's in there. A twenty-four inch TV would suit me fine. And I would like it to look beautiful before it's switched on. Of course, I also want a great picture, great sound, easy to use, and any other bells and whistles Apple cares to add that enhance the overall experience.
However, it's my living room, so I want the TV to earn its place there in every way. How it looks as a piece of 'furniture' is very important to me and, I hope, lots more people. Screen size options for those with a more modest requirement would be welcome, certainly in my home. I hope Apple understands this.
Last edited:
I have a very strong feeling that there is a link between the iMac not yet being refreshed and all of this talk about television. iMacs with ivy bridge, larger, higher resolution screens & tv capabilities being released later this year is a very high possibility.
You think a monitor that cost 4k in this day in age where LCD technology has been dropping in price makes sense? And apple just targeting "pro users" ?
Maybe it's not the obvious answer for a reason
Y'know, if you look at the current TV equipment market, it bears a staggering resemblance to the pre-iPhone cellphone market.
1. A user-interface train wreck. Here's the remote from my latest bit of TV kit... I need 2 other remotes to operate my stack.
Methinks Apple could improve on that.
2. Lots of 'smart' features that people aren't really using because of fragmentation, the aforementioned UI train wreck, and all sorts of bizarre restrictions and combinations of things that you can't do because of DRM paranoia and the other train wreck that is DLNA (the only moderately useful DLNA client/server I've encountered is XBMC, and when open-source is easier to use than proprietary then you know you're in trouble). E.g. the box that the above remote came with would, potentially, be a great media server if it were not for the fact that apart from recorded TV or re-grabbed DVDs, the only thing you can get *into* it is MP3 audio and *that* it refuses to serve over DLNA or even to the proprietary iPad app (which is the only thing that will play HD video recordings from it). It's not just that particular box: my Samsung TV does have a fairly good BBC iPlayer implementation (which is nice) but suffers from hugely complicated menus and bewildering picture enhancement options, and the DLNA client just refuses to play anything or bombs out when connected to anything but the official Samsung (Windows only) DLNA server.
3. Content/network providers that need a boot up the derriere. Leave the channels to light entertainment, live sport and premium-phone-call fuelled reality, and offer an a la carte service for quality programs, please.
Apple could sort this out. The ATV2 is a million miles from perfect, but already does a better job of the basics, like playing music and video (including my ripped DVDs and CDs) from my Mac.
Now, Apple is quite likely to say "Well, you don't really need a DVR with a BluRay recorder in it when you can buy or rent everything you need from the iTunes store - so let's get rid of that complexity". On the other hand, if their walled garden just plain works, is easy to use and uses the same sort of minimally intrusive DRM that they've used to date, then some people might buy into that. Any potential for open-ness that the alternative had went away with DRM-ridden HD and the theoretically standard DLNA which only actually works between equipment from the same supplier.
It will be interesting to see what alternative they offer for TV channels, though. In the UK, they'll need BBC iPlayer as a minimum: While I want 'a la carte', I'm not sure I want to give up the option of watching Doctor Who in HD for free.
Well, that's pretty much what the current TV manufacturers are offering with the "smart" TVs: want this year's new apps? Buy this year's model TV. If, as per the iPad 1, Apple support their TV with major updates for 2 years (and patches after that) then they'll be ahead of the game.
Well, Apple could take that road - how about a big LCD panel with AirPlay and nothing else? It would be great if you wanted to mount your TV on a wall and didn't want the regulation 2 platefuls of spaghetti hanging out the back (when I look behind my TV it ain't pretty).
Even with the ATV2 box plugged into a normal TV, that's 2 remotes to juggle (if you need to adjust volume or picture settings) - even with devices that 'link' (e.g. my Samsung TV has some control over my Sony surround system) its usually patchy and you need to grab the original remote occasionally.
1. A user-interface train wreck. Here's the remote from my latest bit of TV kit... I need 2 other remotes to operate my stack.
Methinks Apple could improve on that.
2. Lots of 'smart' features that people aren't really using because of fragmentation, the aforementioned UI train wreck, and all sorts of bizarre restrictions and combinations of things that you can't do because of DRM paranoia and the other train wreck that is DLNA (the only moderately useful DLNA client/server I've encountered is XBMC, and when open-source is easier to use than proprietary then you know you're in trouble). E.g. the box that the above remote came with would, potentially, be a great media server if it were not for the fact that apart from recorded TV or re-grabbed DVDs, the only thing you can get *into* it is MP3 audio and *that* it refuses to serve over DLNA or even to the proprietary iPad app (which is the only thing that will play HD video recordings from it). It's not just that particular box: my Samsung TV does have a fairly good BBC iPlayer implementation (which is nice) but suffers from hugely complicated menus and bewildering picture enhancement options, and the DLNA client just refuses to play anything or bombs out when connected to anything but the official Samsung (Windows only) DLNA server.
3. Content/network providers that need a boot up the derriere. Leave the channels to light entertainment, live sport and premium-phone-call fuelled reality, and offer an a la carte service for quality programs, please.
Apple could sort this out. The ATV2 is a million miles from perfect, but already does a better job of the basics, like playing music and video (including my ripped DVDs and CDs) from my Mac.
Now, Apple is quite likely to say "Well, you don't really need a DVR with a BluRay recorder in it when you can buy or rent everything you need from the iTunes store - so let's get rid of that complexity". On the other hand, if their walled garden just plain works, is easy to use and uses the same sort of minimally intrusive DRM that they've used to date, then some people might buy into that. Any potential for open-ness that the alternative had went away with DRM-ridden HD and the theoretically standard DLNA which only actually works between equipment from the same supplier.
It will be interesting to see what alternative they offer for TV channels, though. In the UK, they'll need BBC iPlayer as a minimum: While I want 'a la carte', I'm not sure I want to give up the option of watching Doctor Who in HD for free.
Well, that's pretty much what the current TV manufacturers are offering with the "smart" TVs: want this year's new apps? Buy this year's model TV. If, as per the iPad 1, Apple support their TV with major updates for 2 years (and patches after that) then they'll be ahead of the game.
Well, Apple could take that road - how about a big LCD panel with AirPlay and nothing else? It would be great if you wanted to mount your TV on a wall and didn't want the regulation 2 platefuls of spaghetti hanging out the back (when I look behind my TV it ain't pretty).
Even with the ATV2 box plugged into a normal TV, that's 2 remotes to juggle (if you need to adjust volume or picture settings) - even with devices that 'link' (e.g. my Samsung TV has some control over my Sony surround system) its usually patchy and you need to grab the original remote occasionally.
You're right. Apple will be making Holographic displays and Virtual Reality rooms by then. And you'll stick with your old-fashioned TV just to spite Apple.
The content providers, not the cable companies are the target. The discussion goes:
"How would like to be able set your own price, offer subscription or al la carte prices? We get 30% of the price."
Because the average lifespan of a 'computer' is 4-5 years (not including high end users). Apple doesn't expect you to 'replace' your iMac every few years as an average user. They expect you to come back around that quarter cycle unless you are a pro user.
Why would it be different for the TV...oh I don't know...maybe because your iMac is a computer and this is a TELEVISION. Computer tech CHANGES by the year, hell by every 6 months and drastically changes the experienc. Faster CPUs, better memory, better graphics cards, etc.
Television tech does not change that often, other then some ridiculous apps that makers add that does not change the quality of the display.
This issue of 'upgrading every 2 years vs say 7' has been 'discussed' by EVERY major news/tech outlet. Apple KNOWS that people don't just go out and drop $2000-$4000 on a TV every few years. They KNOW that a TV lifespan is in the range of 7+ years.
It is NOT in their best interest here to force an upgrade every two years because they know no one is going to do that with a display that is that expensive.
They DO know that for a smaller price range, like the price of an Apple TV Box, that they can get people to upgrade that.
Tim Cook downplayed the viability of an ala carte option earlier this year so I wouldn't get my hopes up for that.
How much does Apple currently make off the $99 ATV box? Isn't iTunes basically break even? Or maybe it's somewhat profitable now because of Apple's cut of app sales? Earlier this year when Tim Cook was asked about TV he said Apple wasn't looking to make money off content, they make their money off devices. So I could see them getting into the TV business if they think they can build an integrated premium product that people will buy. Sure it might be a low margin business, but couldn't the same be said for the PC business? And Apple seems to do fine there.
Ummm
Uhhh... yeah.. that's what I meant when I used the term "4K". A monitor that cost $4,000... not next gen resolution (retina display) at all... 'cause you know the term 4K hasn't been used for 4000p + resolution for the past five years...
Uhhh... yeah.. that's what I meant when I used the term "4K". A monitor that cost $4,000... not next gen resolution (retina display) at all... 'cause you know the term 4K hasn't been used for 4000p + resolution for the past five years...
If it's that simple how come no one else has done it yet (at least not on a mass scale)?
I just don't understand how this is going to work. Assuming Apple continues to cater to the affluent, wouldn't they already have TVs larger than 55"? Who is going to upgrade to a smaller TV?
No ones buying smart tv's for the smart part. Your just forced to get them if you want the high end sets with the better panels. S-PVA (best for lcd televion) vs MVA (decent but weird off angle gamma shift) or IPS (terrible black levels, off angle glow).
Last edited:
Not exactly, 4k refers to the number of horizontal pixels whereas "XXXp" (720p, 1080p) refers to the number of vertical pixels. For example, you could say a monitor with a resolution of 4096×1714 has a 4k screen but it only has a vertical resolution of 1714p.
Comparison with current TVs/monitors is pretty difficult however as you can't compare directly an axis or another since 4k screens typically have a wider aspect ratio than the current 16:9 standard. At some point maybe we will start talking about screen resolutions in megapixels, just like with cameras.