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

It's 2009 Again: Apple is Apparently Reconsidering Making a TV

dmr727 said:
Wake me when someone decides to make a 'dumb' TV again. Something with a gorgeous display that does absolutely nothing except display whatever content I feed into it via a variety of ports.

Is that too much to ask???
Click to expand...
Also, provide the capability of presenting media at 24fps to preserve the film look as opposed to the "video" look of 4k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmr727
MEMSMaster said:
We are still using our Samsung plasma, even though a larger screen would be helpful as our eyes age, not just due to the colors and dark blacks but because every other technology makes my spouse sick from the motion flicker.

(I'm told high end OLED is good in the flicker/blurring respect but I can't afford $4k for one of those)
Click to expand...
Still using my 55 Panasonic Plasma! It's 14 years old, and I don't know how to replace it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank001
CharlesShaw said:
Still using and loving the 50" Panasonic plasma I bought in 2012 ($699 felt like a steal, having paid much more for smaller inferior name-brand TVs during the 2000's). I still don't need 4k, and have yet to see a friend or relative's TV image that looks as good to me, so fingers crossed it survives until comparable technology is affordable.
Click to expand...
Yes to all of this! my 55" Panasonic Plasma 2010 is still going strong!
 
  • Like
Reactions: J.J. Sefton
Late to the party here, but this would be an insta-buy from me as well. I don't care about gaming, I just want a fairly nice TV that isn't watching me back that doesn't have a garbage OS. I have a 55" Samsung frame TV, which I bought for its minimalism, but the picture is splotchy garbage and the OS is straight-up creepy. I was watching TV late one night, and heard this intermittent chirping. I searched Google and found out it was tracking user positioning in front of the TV using an ultrasonic sensor (so they could tell advertisers if you were actually watching the ads -- go to the Legal & Privacy section to turn it off.) I have a Samsung sound bar, which frequently stops working and requires me to unplug the TV and plug it back in for it to start working again... The smart things app is janky as hell... I had to hack it to work with HomeKit (which is why I can't just "unplug from the internet"). Sigh I could go on and on.

🙏 Please Apple, make a TV! You can even neglect it like your HomePods and Studio Display and update it every five years and make it cost $1,000 more than the competition and inexplicably leave out support for common standards like HDR10+ and have zero HDMI inputs because Apple. I only buy these things once every decade or so anyway, so I can fall asleep watching TNG. I have a projector for Kino and thankfully, it's dumb as a brick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the future
gmanist1000 said:
I thought the Vision Pro was replacing TV’s? This rumor makes no sense.
Click to expand...
iu
 
I wish they would, make luxury TVs. Samsung TVs may look good but Samsung service is terrible and the TVs break often, especially certain models. Apple may one day make TVs I can't afford, they may even use Samsung panels in them, but the TV itself will probably look great and will break less often, and Apple repair will be easier to deal with even if they do break early. And if Apple made their own TVs they could develop a wireless video technology that is high bitrate and low latency, and put those same special chips into their devices and in the Apple TV box.
 
SoldOnApple said:
I wish they would, make luxury TVs. Samsung TVs may look good but Samsung service is terrible and the TVs break often, especially certain models. Apple may one day make TVs I can't afford, they may even use Samsung panels in them, but the TV itself will probably look great and will break less often, and Apple repair will be easier to deal with even if they do break early. And if Apple made their own TVs they could develop a wireless video technology that is high bitrate and low latency, and put those same special chips into their devices and in the Apple TV box.
Click to expand...
Today's TVs are very advanced from just a few years ago. Since Apple doesn't fab their own panels and complete at all in the display marketplace rumors like this are very shaky to start with. Look at Mark Gruman's text that is the basis of this thread.
If the product does catch on, it will help set the stage for more home devices. Apple is working on a high-end AI companion with a robotic arm and large display that could serve as a follow-up. The company could also put more resources into developing mobile robots, privacy-focused home cameras and speakers. It may even revisit the idea of making an Apple-branded TV set, something it’s evaluating. But if the first device fails, Apple may have to rethink its smart home ambitions once again.
Click to expand...
Notice Mark used the word "may", so this isn't even a rumor really it's just Gruman talking up a vague possibility of such. 😀
 
Chungry said:
You get what you pay for
Click to expand...
It’s got nothing to do with getting what you pay for. If you don’t need the tv’s OS, because you are plugging in an Apple TV or Firestick… then why should you have to “pay more” to “get what you pay for”, if you do not even need it to begin with.
 
Ridiculous rumours, seriously, they charge £1500 and up for a LCD monitor, don’t care if its well built has good speakers and a crappy (according to some) camera, and it may very well have a good image, it’s still an LCD monitor, no Mini LED (that’s £5000 and up) and no OLED.
Apple would seriously need to reconsider its pricing to compete in the TV market these days, no one buys TVs costing thousands and thousands and they wait for them to drop in price when next years models come out anyway. It’s one competitive market.
 
gavroche said:
It’s got nothing to do with getting what you pay for. If you don’t need the tv’s OS, because you are plugging in an Apple TV or Firestick… then why should you have to “pay more” to “get what you pay for”, if you do not even need it to begin with.
Click to expand...
Cheaper sets have awful software. My LG has WebOS yet it fires right up without hesitation. I also didn’t pick it up on a black Friday sale. So yeah you get what you pay for with TVs and the cheaper they are the worse they perform and the more sluggish their software always is.
 
I'd like to see it, even if it's an expensive niche. I'd like to see what kind of thought they put into differentiating theirs, what they automate and make better, and perhaps as importantly how that trickles into the rest of the industry that would set forth to copy them

I'd expect at minimum it would have a bunch of mics and color sensors to always have optimal picture and sound, and just better integrate than a set top box ever can
 
  • Like
Reactions: the future
rulymammoth said:
But Apple's strength is amazing hardware plus great integration with software. I think they see that there's an opportunity to do that for many products. I'm sure a TV made by Apple wouldn't just be a high quality screen. There'd be more to it. Probably FaceTime, probably some sort of motion and eye sensing that was developed for the AVP.
Click to expand...
The primary problem with "TV" isn’t the software and hardware integration. It is the software to software (apps) integration and Apple has very limited success in improving that because that is so dependent on the content providers. None of that can/could be improved by controlling the hardware and the software in the TV itself. What made the iPod a success wasn't the hardware and software integration IMO, it was the deals Apple was able to make with all the Music houses brining everything together. Sorry, but that isn't happening with TV/Movie etc.

And that is just one of the issues. TVs are a commodity item with extremely low margins. Also the life cycle of TVs is much longer than other product categories Apple has entered (around 6-7 years). Anyway if Apple could solve the primary problem, they could do it in a set top box first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chungry
dmr727 said:
Wake me when someone decides to make a 'dumb' TV again. Something with a gorgeous display that does absolutely nothing except display whatever content I feed into it via a variety of ports.
Click to expand...
Great news! You can wake up now.
In fact, you never needed to go to sleep in the first place.

👉 There are lots of "digital signage" displays that do just what you want.

It's just that they're likely not found in the TV aisle in your local (consumer) electronics store.
And not necessarily at the same price point as consumer TVs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmr727
Biro said:
Well, you CAN buy a smart TV with a panel you like and leave the “smart” section disconnected from the internet while using an Apple TV box. That’s what I do. I guarantee you economies of scale ensure a true “dumb” TV would cost no less.
Click to expand...
A dumb TV would cost more because you are the product, not the customer with a smart TV.

Even in 1984, Orwell never dreamed we’d pay for our own spy screens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Biro
p
redmac said:
220ppi in a 65” screen would make a 12K TV. Even if they invented a way to carry that much bandwidth with high refresh rate, you wouldn’t find any 12K content, and unless you watch your 65” TV from 2 feet away, you wouldn’t need that 220 ppi.
Click to expand...
The article doesn’t mention it’s 65’’. What I meant is that my only interest would be if if it lets you workaround the price of the Studio Display, which of course is not going to happen. Other than that, my interest in it would be the same I have in the Vision Pro and the Apple Watch.
 
azentropy said:
The primary problem with "TV" isn’t the software and hardware integration. It is the software to software (apps) integration and Apple has very limited success in improving that because that is so dependent on the content providers. None of that can/could be improved by controlling the hardware and the software in the TV itself. What made the iPod a success wasn't the hardware and software integration IMO, it was the deals Apple was able to make with all the Music houses brining everything together. Sorry, but that isn't happening with TV/Movie etc.

And that is just one of the issues. TVs are a commodity item with extremely low margins. Also the life cycle of TVs is much longer than other product categories Apple has entered (around 6-7 years). Anyway if Apple could solve the primary problem, they could do it in a set top box first.
Click to expand...
Nailed it. Couple this with apples track record with displays and it’s an utter fairytale to think they’d make a TV or get any traction in the market.

All that said, they were dumb enough to spend 10s of billions and a decade on a car project so I suppose anything is possible with Tim at the wheel
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak
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