Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTV Killed the Comcast Star

If APPL can break the a la carte log jam, I am in.

I pay way too much because of Komunistcast bundle policy. Example, I am not a big sports fan but I have to pay for ESPN. (note: sport coverage is going to be more expensive in the future)

I would go 100% on a APPL Tv system if I could lower my monthly cable fees.
 
Perfect sense

I seem to be the minority in thinking a 32" 37" seems completely logical. I feel Apple will be bridging the idea of Apple TV with iMacs which are currently at 21" and 27". It makes no sense to have such large displays for computers as well as a large display for a TV in the same house in my opinion. So 32" and 37" seems to make sense as a compromise for a TV and a computer. That's what I'm thinking at least...
 
Remember when people thought Apple would never get into the mobile phone biz? Since they control everything, most thought they would never go along with a third party carrier. That seemed to work a bit for them.

----------



A very very thin screen will probably take up less warehouse space (if packaged right) than a very Thick iMac box. This will happen and Apple will again be a game changer. I believe this will be new technology make the scene almost as thin as an iPad. Just you wait.

LG has a 55 inch OLED TV coming out this spring: 5 mm thick...
 
Super Bowl - the venue of choice for the "1984" ad - is beng streamed this year.

Food for thought...

The Olympics are also being streamed, more food for thought.

I don't see the need for a tv set but there's definite need for a new way to distribute content.
 
This whole iTV concept is so much utter crap that I'm convinced it's just a play on Steve's "I finally cracked it!" comment. There's nothing to it.

The more electronics manufacturers spend time worrying about this the more they stay out of Apple's back yard. Brilliant! (And funny)
 
Like I mentioned above, if Apple gets into this market, I don't think it will be the "TV Market," it will bridge iMac and TV together. There's no need for two similar devices in everyone's homes. They need to become one.

I'd agree if the screen size was 50-60 inches, but rumors have it that it's around 30 inches, making it a waste of money for a TV and a Monitor, it's good for a monitor, bad for a TV.

Also, if the price is too high, it is likely to fail.

It has to be around $500 for a 37 inch TV, if it's more than that, it will fail in sales.
 
I call bull on this, just like every other insider who just so happened to gain access to information regarding this iTV after the release of Steve Jobs's biography.

"I cracked it" - how far can a person take this statement? Was Jobs meditating in a room when he suddenly opened his eyes and shouted aloud "***** man, that's it! Of course I cracked it, I'm Steve ******** Jobs!". I've cracked eggs, but I can't make the world's best omelette.
 
Still refuse to believe it.

Unless the set has all the bells an whistles of top-line sets (incredible refresh rates, glasses free 3D, paper thin bezel to name a few) and some new kinect style, motion/Siri voice control no one will care.

Has to be a super sized iMac hybrid or Suped-Up Apple TV 3.
 
I've cracked it! I know how Apple will get around the size issue. They're building a projector! It can be whatever size you want up to 120".

;)
 
What's different with Apple is that the television would be another piece of the existing ecosystem. You could extrapolate this to an Apple TV and existing televisions, which, coincidentally has much less resolution, ie, lesser experience...
I'm not sure what you're saying here but if Apple produces a TV that can receive broadcast or cable signals, it's going to be 1080p or a multiple thereof. And if they produce a TV capable of showing 4K (not that there's any such content yet), the price will be astronomical, even at small sizes.


The key to making this work is to break the user from scheduled television, cutting the cable as it were. If Apple can solve that, then they can win big..
But they can't solve it because most people won't give up scheduled television, especially where sports are concerned.


LG is prepping a 55 inch OLED for late spring of next year, and I would be excited if Apple was able to latch onto that tech at the 32/37 inch size and TB display resolution. I would buy that, and so would most of you..
That LG set is going to cost something like $10,000 and it's still going to be 1080p just like all the current sets. The mass market doesn't buy $10,000 TVs. Pioneer made fantastic Plasma sets in the Kuro line, but they were expensive and in spite of the accolades, they went out of business.

The other issue with the TV business is that prices go down constantly during the model year. Apple never reduces prices until new models come out and then only a little on the older models still in inventory. So even if Apple starts out the beginning of a model year priced similarly to a competitive set, six months down the road, Apple will be priced at least 30% higher.

If I was an audio device builder, I would kill to get a piece of TB, because all of the sudden, I'm selling amplifiers as black boxes. The Apple Television holds the interface and digitally processes the audio, as simple or complex as can be imagined.
Huh? What's TB? Apple will simplify the audio with built in speakers, but it will suck, just like the audio out of the speakers on all their laptops suck. And Apple will probably want to eliminate almost all inputs and outputs. IMO, you can't sell the high end without being able to connect the set to an external 5.1 (minimum) audio system. And in spite of many people who only care about content they can access online, there are still many people who want to play Blu-ray or DVD and access online services other than Apple's. My current TV supports Netflix, Pandora, Amazon On-Demand and about 30 other services (not that I use very many of them). Apple will support only iTunes.

I'd love to see Apple be successful at this and I think Siri and Apple UI will bring a lot of value, but I simply can't see how they can succeed. The market is driving prices down. Sony hasn't made a profit selling TV's in about five years. Apple is not going to be able to get the equivalent content as a cable/satellite provider because the costs per subscriber are enormous: the "important" cable channels charge anywhere from $1 to $3 per channel even if the subscriber NEVER watches the channel. That's why cable bills keep going up and why channels get moved to higher tiers.

Even if it's actually less expensive to pay by the show, most people want the security of a fixed monthly charge. So they are not going to get the masses to give up cable/satellite and go to a "pay as you go" model.

So maybe Apple's got something up their sleeve that I can't currently conceive, just as they did with the iPhone and iPad, but as of right now, I can't imagine what that would be.
 
Content providers are the true gatekeepers and they aren't handing over control to Apple like they did for iTunes. They will do their own programming instead and if it is bad and the user interface isn't very good, so what, the content providers have the content and people will fight with the interface to get a chance to watch the latest hot program when it comes out.

So I can't see Apple ever really getting a good agreement with the content owners. Certainly, they will not easily get a license for sports programming without paying a bundle (see NBA TV which is $170 a year to get standard def streaming games except for the ones they want you watching on your cable package).
 
If Apple works directly with the studios and develops its own distribution method, cable companies have nothing to sue over. Cable and satellite companies don't have exclusive distribution rights for the content they carry.

How exactly is Apple going to distribute the content to your house?
 
Itv?

So who is going to answer the question regards the ITV issue here in the UK? ITV is a huge netwrok across the whole of the UK, It stands for Independent Television and is a legacy of many companies which is now one huge company.. Are you seriously saying that ITV would let them use this name? I think the game here is what else is the Apple tv going to be called? Oh let me think? Could it be.. Apple TV?
 
So who is going to answer the question regards the ITV issue here in the UK? ITV is a huge netwrok across the whole of the UK, It stands for Independent Television and is a legacy of many companies which is now one huge company.. Are you seriously saying that ITV would let them use this name? I think the game here is what else is the Apple tv going to be called? Oh let me think? Could it be.. Apple TV?
Relax, most of us are just calling it iTV to avoid confusing it with Apple TV which already exists but not as a TV set. They very well might call it Apple TV 3. Or iScreen. Or iTube. Whatever. We're calling it "iTV" for now so we all know we're talking about the same rumored product. And if they do call it that, I'm sure Apple's people are bright enough to work out the copyright issues with ITV before actually releasing the real product.
 
You are probably right about calling it 'ITV' until its officially launched and as you say im sure Apple are not that silly to launch without coming to some agreement using the name, I cant however believe that the UK ITV would allow that to be used as it could damage their brand in the long run. My guess is it will be called Apple TV and the one thats out now will be renamed.
 
Anyway, it's naive to think that a single TV set would be a "whole package". Sorry sir, I'm not listening to TV from dinky TV set attached speakers. I have a nice 5.1 surround sound system I want to hook it up to.

Unless the "whole package" experience is seriously limited, there's just no way in home theaters or TV to offer such a thing.

So frankly, that argument is bunk and if it's the only thing Apple brings with a TV Set rather than a set top box, I for one won't be buying this stuff.

You need to visit the local BOSE store and watch/listen to their TV before you make that statement.
 
Anyone have a ballpark figure on how much it would cost Apple to nab rights for NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA? I'm just thinking here that most of my friends who are on cable or satellite, are ONLY on them for live sports. I don't really watch most of them so cutting the cable was easy for me. If you remove that barrier...

I don't think Apple needs to necessarily revolutionize TV on the very first product release. What's more reasonable is to just to get their foot in the door. Well, they already have MLB and NBA. All they really need now is NFL. Maybe college hoops or football. If they can do that, then they can build up enough leverage eventually to pull over other "regular" TV content.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.