Foxconn Accelerating Sharp LCD Panel Orders to Launch Apple Television for Holiday Season?

[Rocketman]

It is within Apple's capability to introduce and popularize 4K viewing with consumers. It would be a competitive advantage and differentiator. The entry level could be 1080p at retina resolution (2K). Apple TV as hardware could easily be that. It would leave their competitors "flommoxed".

A 4K panel and a 2K panel with the 2K playing 1080 at pixel doubled and 4K at pixel halved resolution. Wallyworld high end TV. But 4K is 4K and wait till you see it.

Rocketman

https://forums.macrumors.com/search/?searchid=28397107

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3119491&4k#post3119491

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3196270&4k#post3196270

 

[MacinDoc]

I think this will be a ninche product.

I have an LG 1080p 50" plasma that I paid £450 for from retail, the screen on it is amazing, what on earth would convince me to cough up 2 or 3 times the price for an Apple TV?

It will more than likely be a 1080p TV, with maybe appletv built in, well I have a XBMC box hooked so which is far better than the appletv.

It is unlikely it will be a 4K TV as we are years from that being a domestic format for TV, hell most cable content is sent at 720p or at best 1080i making little difference.

Kimbie

Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac. And people bought iPods to function as portable HDDs because the iPod cost less than a similar capacity portable HDD.

If Apple has the will, it certainly has the financial resources to have 4K TV technology mass produced to the point that its price will be reasonable for a premium TV. And Apple has the ability to incorporate the graphics power into such a TV that it should suffer considerably less from problems like pixelation and slow response time than other comparable products. It would be the Retina equivalent of the television, and that certainly seems to be the direction in which Apple is going.

The biggest question is whether Apple thinks it can make enough money off such a product to justify the massive investment risk required to make it happen. And, as you say, the content is the other kicker, as only Blu-Ray has content that would even remotely tax the abilities of a 4K TV. However, upscaled 1080p content could still look crisper on a 4K display than on a 1080p display if the video processor is good enough, much as 1440 X 900 content looks crisper on the rMBP display than it does on the non-retina MBP display.

 

[Randomoneh]

With iPad 3 and Laptops with retina displays above 1080P HD pixel count, you think they will have a TV lower than 1080P? Why would you think that? I'll be waiting for your answer. It will be very interesting listening to your convoluted logic.

Well, a laptop usually occupies a higher field of view than a TV does.

 

[G51989]

I don't see an Apple branded TV happening any time soon, knowing Apple, they would price it at 4-5K. And most people really wouldn't want to spend that much on a TV, at all.

Hell, I hardly even use my Cable, but I have like 700 channels for 105 dollars a month, and a 60 inch Plasma TV. It'd be hard to get me away from that lol

 

[Exhale]

They are all either as expensive or more expensive than the Thunderbolt Display, and have plastic cases, no integrated speakers, no integrated HD webcam, no Thunderbolt Hub, daisy chaining, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, good looking design, resale value...

So you'd rather have a display with worse colour reproduction (especially without user calibration) and budget-monitor ergonomic adjustments, for Firewire connectivity, a webcam, and some low quality speakers? And these advantages scale horribly in multi-monitor setups.

In addition, I should point out the TBD is actually more expensive (significantly so) in several markets. Compare 5500 SEK vs. 8200 SEK for Swedish citizen, for example. Post taxes. Or 784 USD.

Throw in the calibrator and 3rd party mounting kit in ordert to get on even footing with competing displays in what actually matters - and you're insanely far behind.

 

[RobertMartens]

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.

You are looking to the past to tell us about the future?

What will the future of TV replacements be when Apple is selling great TVs and improving them dramatically every year or two.

Do you really think that looking at what SONY or SAMSUNG have done 5 to 10 years ago will help us predict the market 5 years from now?

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE APPROACHING THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND.

 

[batistuta]

"iPad-like touchscreen remote". Telling you, Apple has no plans for a 7 inch iPad and what's leaking out is info on the remote for the Apple TV

Makes sense. Touch screen control with built in mic for Siri voice commands. Best remote ever

My thoughts exactly - smaller and lighter than the normal iPad, and probably less powerful too in order to achieve that, and to make it less expensive to manufacture.
It could have a resolution of 1024x768 as the old iPad, so scaling is easy and a less powerful graphics chip can be used.
Bundling a tv set and a tablet - that's what Samsung does...

 

[pgiguere1]

So you'd rather have a display with worse colour reproduction (especially without user calibration) and budget-monitor ergonomic adjustments, for Firewire connectivity, a webcam, and some low quality speakers? And these advantages scale horribly in multi-monitor setups.

In addition, I should point out the TBD is actually more expensive (significantly so) in several markets. Compare 5500 SEK vs. 8200 SEK for Swedish citizen, for example. Post taxes. Or 784 USD.

Throw in the calibrator and 3rd party mounting kit in ordert to get on even footing with competing displays in what actually matters - and you're insanely far behind.

Yes, I would. I don't require any of those features, the TBD looks very good to me uncalibrated and I don't do a job that requires color accuracy or special screen mounting. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a screen with vibrant colors, wide view angles, large size and large resolution for screen real estate.

And I'd rather have FireWire, Gigabit ethernet and an integrated MagSafe for my MBA, plus an extra TB port to daisy chain a TB drive in the future.

"what actually matters" like you say is very subjective. My point was only that I don't think Apple overcharge for their displays for what they are. Whether you prefer having a monitor with good-looking case, a TB hub with extra ports, integrated speakers/webcam/magsafe or one with precise ergonomic adjustments and color calibration is up to you really.

EDIT: As for international pricing, not everywhere is like Sweden. Here in Canada, the Thunderbolt Display is cheaper than in the US since our dollar is worth a bit less than USD yet they still charge CA$999. Other brands will typically convert US$999 to CA$1099. I can also get a student discount on the TBD whereas I can't with other brands.

 

[Aidan5806]

There will be

Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

Maybe not yet, but there are some movies that are in theaters in 4K. The avengers is one, and countless other IMAX movies are filmed in much higher resolution.

 

[diamond.g]

I wouldn't say they overcharge, it's just that they limit their offering to the very high-end. Have you shopped for a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor recently?

Here are some competing models: Dell UltraSharp U2711, DoubleSight DS-277W, NEC MultiSync PA271W, Fujistu P27T-6.

They are all either as expensive or more expensive than the Thunderbolt Display, and have plastic cases, no integrated speakers, no integrated HD webcam, no Thunderbolt Hub, daisy chaining, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, good looking design, resale value...

The 999$ Thunderbolt Display is actually a pretty good deal for what it is. The 27" Cinema Display released before it also was. Same for the 30" Cinema Display before that, can you imagine it had a 2560x1600 resolution 8 years ago?

The major difference between the thunderbolt cinema display and those other displays is they can be used with other sources.

You are looking to the past to tell us about the future?

What will the future of TV replacements be when Apple is selling great TVs and improving them dramatically every year or two.

Do you really think that looking at what SONY or SAMSUNG have done 5 to 10 years ago will help us predict the market 5 years from now?

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE APPROACHING THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND.

I would be curious to see the advances Apple could bring in panel technology. If Apple could get OLED or Crystal LED or 4K from the currently lofty prices (7000+ USD) that would be nice.
But for the prices one currently pays for a quality tv, I don't see replacement every 2 to three years. I suppose if Apples tv was only 500 bucks (for a 50") then one could call it a throwaway tv, but I would be surprised if Apples tv was so cheap and was of higher quality than Samsung or Panasonic displays.

 

[G5isAlive]

Jeez i hope they make a model of this that's at LEAST 55". 65 would be great but i don't see that happening. Either way i'm definitely buying one.... complete household integration!

I was thinking the same thing...will be disappointed if its restricted to smaller sizes. A tv like that is meant to be SEEN.

 

[Randomoneh]

Well, a laptop usually occupies a higher field of view than a TV does.

I'd thing after all those years people would know how to calculate it. Seems like I'm wrong, so I'll help you out.

15.4'' [16:10] laptop
Average distance - 24'', usually closer.
@ 24'', screen occupies 30.4 degrees of horizontal view.

@ 10 ft, you'd need 75'' TV for it to occupy same horizontal angle as 15.4'' display at 24''.

Yeah, I see people with 75'' TVs every day

 

[theluggage]

The major difference between the thunderbolt cinema display and those other displays is they can be used with other sources.

Yes - that's the only reason why I haven't bought one - it doesn't even connect to older Macs with mini-displayport.

Apart from that - looking at a local dealer - while there are plenty of 'consumer/business' displays much cheaper than the TBD, the 'colour critical' displays aimed at graphics professionals are all more expensive than the TBD, including several in the $2000-$3000 price range.

I would be curious to see the advances Apple could bring in panel technology. If Apple could get OLED or Crystal LED or 4K from the currently lofty prices (7000+ USD) that would be nice.

The problem with 4k is how you're going to get that 'down the pipe' to consumers. I don't want 4k at the expense of it being compressed to buggery - some over-the-air or streamed HD content already suffers from that.

I don't see replacement every 2 to three years.

Neither would I, but OTOH that's what you're looking at with most current 'smart' TVs if you want the latest internet/media player features.

However, it depends on your criteria for 'replacement' - if you look at the iPad, the iPad 1 is now over 2 years old - it got upgrades from iOS 3 -> iOS 4 and (with a few omissions) iOS 5. It's not going to get iOS 6, but that doesn't mean it's going to get kicked off the App store.

Personally, though, I think the idea of an Apple TV is promising, but I wouldn't touch it if it didn't have at least a HDMI-in.

 

[SPUY767]

4K pleeeeaaaasssseeee.
If apple could offer that kind of resolution in their tv set, even at a premium, it would be amazing.

Because that would only cost $8-10k.

----------

Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac.

None of those statements are accurate. A DVD-RW may have cost a couple hundred Dollars at the time, but it was nowhere near the cost of an iMac. Apple doesn't manufacture displays, they buy panels from LCD manufacturers and yields on displays of that resolution are incredibly low. The first iPod I got was $400. The year prior I had gotten a portable hard drive 8x larger for approximately the same price.

 

[MonkeySee....]

They could just upgrade the current Cinema Displays. They can keep the name and just have it do "Smart" stuff. Would be good to have a TV that you can use as an external monitor then switch it to a TV mode when you're done working.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple has the ability to bring 4K to the masses the way it brought the DVD-RW (SuperDrive) and the pocket-sized HDD (iPod) to the masses. At the time Apple incorporated the DVD-RW into the iMac, you could hardly get a DVD-RW for the price of the entire iMac.

The first Super-Drive Imac was in Jan 2002, and was $1799.

The Pioneer DVR-A03 was introduced the year before with an MSRP of $995, and was selling for hundreds less than that.

Perhaps you're thinking of the year before, when Compaq and Apple introduced the Pioneer DVR-103 in the Presario and PowerMac lines. That was the first consumer grade DVD-R, and professional DVD writers at the time were very pricey.

(The DVR-103 was the OEM model number for the DVR-A03.)

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I don't see an Apple branded TV happening any time soon, knowing Apple, they would price it at 4-5K. And most people really wouldn't want to spend that much on a TV, at all.

Yikes, where exactly do you get that pricing from? I don't understand why so many seem to think Apple will set such a premium. Of course most people assume that premium price would be $2,000-$2,500... not $5,000...

Apple's not stupid. They realize it will take a lot of factors and elements to get people to buy their TVs. Look at their strategy on products that past few years. The iPhone (of course with subsidy) is incredibly competitive pricing. Everybody was thinking that Apple's tablet would cost upwards of $1,000.. and what happened? $499, and now as low as $399.

Apple has gotten very skilled at making very high quality, inexpensive products. I think the iTV (iPanel?) will very closely parrallel how the iPad completely changed how people view the tablet.

I think the iTV will start at $999.

 

[ncbill]

Do people really wait 7 years to buy a new TV?

In less than 3 years, I upgraded my 720p, 42" HDTV ($875) to a 1080p, 50" ($650) - both Panasonic plasmas.

Currently my local Costco has a 70" LED-backlit Sharp LCD HDTV for under $2500.

In another 3 years I'd be willing to pay $1000 for that or something comparable.

 

[Exhale]

Do people really wait 7 years to buy a new TV?

Uh, yes?
A statement like that strongly suggests you're very young.

 

[iEvolution]

I know it has been said, but I can't see the Apple TV being successful if they simply base it off the current iTunes model, everything is ridiculously expensive.

Apple would have to make a subscription service that is desirable if they expect to suceed. A TV with Siri won't cut it.

Alternatively a TV with incredibly high resolution but that wouldn't work either since video technology is stalled at 1080.

Then there is the issue of the Apple box set, no one is going to buy a TV when they can add iTunes intregation with the 100 dollar Apple TV set.

The TV market is jam packed with competition a just can't see Apple succeeding in this segment unless there is something very special going into it.

 

[MacinDoc]

The first Super-Drive Imac was in Jan 2002, and was $1799.

The Pioneer DVR-A03 was introduced the year before with an MSRP of $995, and was selling for hundreds less than that.

Perhaps you're thinking of the year before, when Compaq and Apple introduced the Pioneer DVR-103 in the Presario and PowerMac lines. That was the first consumer grade DVD-R, and professional DVD writers at the time were very pricey.

(The DVR-103 was the OEM model number for the DVR-A03.)

Yes, I believe you're right, it was the Power Mac and not the iMac.

My point was that Apple could use its market position to make 4K TV a commercially viable, although expensive, option for buyers. (Perhaps a 60" Apple 4K TV would cost $4000; very pricey, but cheaper than anything comparable available at the time.) But it would be a massive, incredibly expensive risk, because to bring the price down to where even the most spendthrift consumers would buy it, Apple would have to build hundreds of thousands of them, before knowing how they would be received by consumers.

 

[ghettochris]

Whats the point when no content is available to take advantage of it?

New Apple 4k video camera for cheap ($299-999) simultaneous release would be awesome.

 

[kristoffer4]

So true I decided to make one just now.

Very cool!

 

[jlc1978]

Hmmm, well if they can pick off the sports programs that will be big. But the cable companies also control the internet pipes that bring this stuff in. So they will just raise internet pricing to make up for some of this if folks starting cutting the cable cord. (Full disclosure, I cut the cable cord years ago and use free HD over-air broadcast for the basic channels.)

I agree - the ISPs are well aware that they are in danger of becoming simply access providers and not content providers, which is why they are establishing bandwidth caps and tiered services. If they can't get a cut of the content like they do with the current cable model they want a cut for delivering it. HBO2go's a first step in that direction. If you get HBO via cable your cable login gives you online access. It's not a big leap to go to charging for online content independent of a cable subscription and making the login your ISP email address so that the ISP gets a cut of the online sale. Content delivered that way would not count against bandwidth caps; unless you access it off of your ISP's network.

 

[jlc1978]

If it's that simple how come no one else has done it yet (at least not on a mass scale)?

It looks simple after someone has started doing it. Apple already has by offering on iTunes content that is also offered on cable; what they haven't done (yet) is making it available concurrently with cable. That's coming once companies decide they can make more money by doing that than by giving cable exclusives - money will be the key driver of this change and it simply hasn't been lucrative enough (yet).

If you look at the evolution of television and movies; content delievry has shifted from one method to another as choice (in the form of delivery capacity), and therefore revenue, has increased. Broadly viewed, it moved from 3 or 4 OTA broadcast channels to cable with HBO to cable / satellite with hundreds of choices. Internet content delivery offers a quantum leap in choices and will move content from a cable based model to a new one. ISPs owned by cable companies realize that and is one of the things driving bandwidth caps.