He obviously hasn't looked at the new samsungs that split the image from two inputs.
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 Chief Reportedly Making Preparations for Apple Television Set [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He obviously hasn't looked at the new samsungs that split the image from two inputs.
Apple doesn't sell stuff at a premium except some of their old computer lines. You are about ten years too late with that.
----------
I don't know. I think a large screen tv that automatically supports air play for all my iOS devices and apple laptops and able to do it in split screen or even multiple windows would be awesome.
The MP3 player market was "saturated" too, way back in 2001.
Everybody and his brother were selling awkward, finicky MP3 players, because the hardware was trivial to make.
The iTunes infrastructure is the key to iPod's success. (And iPhone's and iPad's and maybe Apple TV's and Apple television's success.)
We don't realize just exactly how awkward it is to actually watch TV, because it took decades to get this bad.
Broadcast VHF -> UHF -> IR remotes -> cable -> VCRs -> satellite -> DVRs -> internet.
50-button remotes, 3- and 4-digit channel numbers, on-screen keyboard torture, ad nauseam.
Your TV just might have a Linux GPL because it uses Linux in its user interface. Mine does (60" Sony SXRD.)
It's all gradually been rolled into our consumer culture, so we accept it. Even though it sucks.
The TV market looks just as ripe for innovative disruption as the MP3 player market did in 2001.
And not just the television set market. The entire industry.
Small matter of the economy getting better. And, of course, getting those content deals signed...
Those are all good and well but what if it's a flop?
Btw when i said first flop i meant after the second coming of Jesus, I mean Steve sorry.
And it should be called iFinallyCrackedit as a testament to him.
Btw, we miss you Steve man.
Oops, maybe I misunderstood your original post.
Anyway, there's no guarantee that Apple will even try to make a dent in the TV industry any time soon. The IGZO LCD and/or OLED panel deal with Sharp (if there is one) could just be for bigger iMac screens.
But in general, it certainly looks like TV content will be delivered through the internet more and more. As wired broadband to the home and wireless broadband to mobile+home become more pervasive, the shift to internet-delivered TV should speed up. Literally.
Apple really does seem to be preparing for that internet TV future. The current Apple TV is just a placeholder. They're using it to gather statistics, to experiment with UI concepts, and as proof that they can stream live TV (e.g. the Paul McCartney concert.)
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
- Seneca the Younger (possibly)
I'm not entirely against an Apple TV set, but I have reservations. Let's just say: knowing what I know about Apple today, I would not buy such a product.
1) Siri simply isn't good enough. If Apple plans to eliminate the remote in favor of a Siri substitute, they've already lost me. I have a hard enough time with the damn thing on my phone. Imagine being required to use it to change channels, record shows, access your DVR......
2) It needs to be compatible with current consoles and set-top boxes. I don't want to have to use a different TV to connect HDMI and component cables. I don't want to have to move my Xbox/PS3 to another room. If they focus entirely on expanding Thunderbird, then they've lost me.
3) It is required that it be compatible with Blu-Ray players. This comes back to using HDMI cables. iTunes content is surprisingly good quality at 1080p, considering the file sizes, but Blu-Ray video and audio quality is still substantially better than anything iTunes can offer. It's really not even close.
4) Competitively priced. Apple can justify charging a premium if it were 4K compatible or higher than 1080p, but if it's simply a 1080p television meant to be used entirely in Apple's ecosystem, I will not buy such a device.
5) Back to number 1: no remote, no purchase.
6) Support 3D. Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic offer exceptional quality in 3D, with Samsung's 3D streaming channel being particularly good. Provide a model with 3D capabilities. This doesn't have to be in the first generation model, but eventually.
7) Do not require an internet connection. This is not likely, since everything involving Apple, from the iPad to the Apple TV, requires an internet connection. Internet speeds are current not consistent enough nationwide to justify streaming everything in 720/1080i HD, or above.
8) Figure out how to handle live sports. I'm an avid baseball watcher, as well as NFL and NCAA football. If Apple truly wants me to dump cable or satellite TV, this is a requirement. I want access to every Rangers baseball game on Fox Sports Southwest, with none of this blackout nonsense (uncontrollable by Apple since this is an MLB issue). If Apple cannot provide live sports, then this isn't even a discussion. I'll stick with my Samsung and AT&T cable box.
1) Siri simply isn't good enough. If Apple plans to eliminate the remote in favor of a Siri substitute, they've already lost me. I have a hard enough time with the damn thing on my phone. Imagine being required to use it to change channels, record shows, access your DVR......
2) It needs to be compatible with current consoles and set-top boxes. I don't want to have to use a different TV to connect HDMI and component cables. I don't want to have to move my Xbox/PS3 to another room. If they focus entirely on expanding Thunderbird, then they've lost me.
3) It is required that it be compatible with Blu-Ray players. This comes back to using HDMI cables. iTunes content is surprisingly good quality at 1080p, considering the file sizes, but Blu-Ray video and audio quality is still substantially better than anything iTunes can offer. It's really not even close.
4) Competitively priced. Apple can justify charging a premium if it were 4K compatible or higher than 1080p, but if it's simply a 1080p television meant to be used entirely in Apple's ecosystem, I will not buy such a device.
5) Back to number 1: no remote, no purchase.
6) Support 3D. Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic offer exceptional quality in 3D, with Samsung's 3D streaming channel being particularly good. Provide a model with 3D capabilities. This doesn't have to be in the first generation model, but eventually.
7) Do not require an internet connection. This is not likely, since everything involving Apple, from the iPad to the Apple TV, requires an internet connection. Internet speeds are current not consistent enough nationwide to justify streaming everything in 720/1080i HD, or above.
8) Figure out how to handle live sports. I'm an avid baseball watcher, as well as NFL and NCAA football. If Apple truly wants me to dump cable or satellite TV, this is a requirement. I want access to every Rangers baseball game on Fox Sports Southwest, with none of this blackout nonsense (uncontrollable by Apple since this is an MLB issue). If Apple cannot provide live sports, then this isn't even a discussion. I'll stick with my Samsung and AT&T cable box.
I don't think I knew anyone who even owned an MP3 player in 2001. So that isn't a saturated market. It was still largely an untapped market.
TVs are actually saturated in that most households have already upgraded to HDTV and TVs tend to have a long life so after the big upgrade the market is actually saturated and sales are in decline and everyone is losing money. Hundreds of Millions to billions in losses.
Also check the update this Foxconn "confirmation" appears to be fabricated.
I only see Apple in this business in two ways:
1: Set top boxes like ATV.
2: License deal to include ATV functions in TVs of other manufacturers.
I see your point. Maybe I can spin my original "saturated" comment by saying that there were many manufacturers selling iPod-like devices (portable music players with miniature internal hard drives) back in 2001. And none of them was either good or dominant. (By the way, I bought an Archos Jukebox Recorder about 2 weeks before the original iPod was announced. :-( )
I disagree partially. I think Apple could keep the ATV nearly as it is now for people who already have TV sets they like. But I think an Apple television set could add compelling features that no other TV set will have (or will do well.)
For example, the Apple set could have a microphone for Siri and an iSight camera for FaceTime calls and for individual and group user recognition. The ATV box wouldn't have the Siri interface or an iSight camera, if it's positioned as it is now as a relatively low-end product (in terms of price.) Also, there would be issues with positioning the ATV box correctly to see and hear people watching TV etc.
But I don't think Apple would want to license their technology, for several reasons. You refer to Apple being "in this business," the television set business. And yes, if all Apple wants to do is sell conventional big-screen TVs that can also stream content from iTunes, then maybe licensing is the best way to go.
But I think Apple will be looking to change the entire industry, not just add value to it. If Apple simply licenses the ATV technology, and TV makers embed an iOS-running circuit board in their sets, then that ATV feature will become just another input. No significant advantage over an external ATV box. Some people might want it, but others wouldn't. So the manufacturers would still need to build non-ATV sets as well. It would be seen as an extra cost option, and it might be hard to convince people in showrooms (or shopping online) to spring for it.
On the other hand, if Apple does their own TV set, they could drastically simplify its electronics. No over-the-air digital TV tuner, no cable-ready circuitry, no RGB / S-Video / composite signal inputs, etc. And no DVR functionality at all (more on that later.) That would reduce its component cost. And they could use the IGZO LCD and/or advanced OLED technology they're supposedly working with Sharp to develop. That's another cost and energy consumption reduction.
So that could give Apple enough of a cost advantage to consider building their own TV set. And, more importantly, Apple could maintain decent margins while still selling their TV set at *competitive prices.* That's very important. It's every hardware competitor's worst nightmare, and it's become a waking nightmare for all of them since the iPad was released and the MacBook Air price was dropped. But how could Apple get consumers to buy their TV set? What compelling feature(s) would it need to have?
Industrial design and picture quality aside, it would need to be simple to set up and use. Like ATV is now. Plus a simple and powerful Siri-driven and/or gesture-driven interface. With FaceTime calls and facial recognition, both of which Apple has been working on for years now. With content streamed from iTunes, and maybe even iOS game-playing built in. (But without an email app, browser app, Twitter app, FaceBook app, and all that other crap you can do with smaller-screen devices without hogging the communal TV screen.)
Oh, and as for the lack of DVR functionality, well that's one of the keys to the Apple television set's (and current ATV's) future success, isn't it? There is zero chance that we'll ever be able to record random content from cable or satellite or over-the-air broadcast on an Apple device. For the same reason that Apple will never add a DVD/BD player to ATV or the Apple TV set. Because recording your own content or playing your own discs would undercut Apple's entire iTunes-based infrastructure. Never going to happen. Sorry. Get over it.
Question - So what will take the place of your carefully programmed DVR? And your nascent Blu-Ray disc collection? And watching the Superbowl live?
Answer - iTunes on-demand playback. Of everything, including live events.
You could watch live events streamed from Apple's servers (e.g. the Paul McCartney concert.) With full pause/rewind/slo-mo. And the instant the live event is over, it would be available on Apple's servers for playback on any device including the Apple TV set. Just like iTunes Match.
Sound simple? Well, from a consumer perspective, it is.
I never noticed this reply until now. But I will answer anyway because I so strenuously disagree.
Selling a TV with no Tuner and No inputs is utterly and completely ridiculous notion. That is crippled to an extreme degree. Today a TV is a central Hub for Cable/Blu Ray/DVR/Xbox/Playstation/Wii etc...
Removing that functionality isn't simplification, it is crippling.
Beyond that, cost saving in this area are trivia. Perhaps $50 in the price of a TV. The main cost is screen.
Further beyond that, you don't sell a crippled TV at Apple like Margin and be cost competitive. Everyone is losing money on TVs. How does Apple come into a saturated market and make it's tradtional 40% margin when everyone else is struggling to make anything over 0%.
IGZO is mainly hype at this point and so far Sharp LCDs have been bottom of the barrel.
I haven't seen one reasonable response that indicates there is any chance Apple could sell an actual TV set and make money at it.
My main concern about buying an Apple TV set is longevity. We all see the Apple hardware business model, new updated models each year and new Os releases with functions made just for the latest model hardware. Sell Os updates cheap or free, make money on the new hardware needed to take full advantage of the new os functions.
The average life of an Apple product is two years, after that the device is partially or fully phased out of Os upgrades. Sure the device still works but if you want the latest functions you need to upgrade. Essentially Apple is making devices sort of disposable in the sense.
This is okay sort of for an iPhone or iPad or maybe after three years for a laptop but a tv?
A tv is an appliance, a white good like a fridge or washing machine. Most people expect to use them more than 5 years, perhaps more than 10 years. So how does Apple given its ever marching toward hardware upgrades, where it makes it's money,how do they get people to upgrade a higher tv every few years?
You know a stat I would live to know, of all the iPhones, iPads and MBPs sold each year, how many are sales to first time users and how many are sales to existing users who are upgrading to the latest? It would be an interesting study that may tell if the future if an Apple tv in that biz model could work.
The average life of an Apple product is two years, after that the device is partially or fully phased out of Os upgrades. Sure the device still works but if you want the latest functions you need to upgrade. Essentially Apple is making devices sort of disposable in the sense.
This is okay sort of for an iPhone or iPad or maybe after three years for a laptop but a tv?
A tv is an appliance, a white good like a fridge or washing machine. Most people expect to use them more than 5 years, perhaps more than 10 years. So how does Apple given its ever marching toward hardware upgrades, where it makes it's money,how do they get people to upgrade a higher tv every few years?
You know a stat I would live to know, of all the iPhones, iPads and MBPs sold each year, how many are sales to first time users and how many are sales to existing users who are upgrading to the latest? It would be an interesting study that may tell if the future if an Apple tv in that biz model could work.
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."
- Rob Malda, founder of technology website Slashdot, on the launch of the iPod in 2001