if you put a 1080 facetime camera on top of your tv set and connect it with your apple-tv it will surely have a stereo microfone built in. or how about having the mic in the remote?
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.
iTunes Creator Jeff Robbin Heading Apple Television Effort?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if you put a 1080 facetime camera on top of your tv set and connect it with your apple-tv it will surely have a stereo microfone built in. or how about having the mic in the remote?
This would be an ecological disaster
If Apple were to release a TV as opposed to a set-top box, then there would be tons of people rushing out to get this TV and hang it on their walls. They would then take down the similar sized (or most likely larger) LCD/LED/Plasma TV they bought in the last 5 years and put it in another room which already has another TV and eventually, they'd throw away a perfectly good TV that was at the bottom of the picking order.
Then, there's the issue of the non-upgradable Apple culture. If Apple releases a TV it WILL be fashionable and it will be thin and it will be unable to hold anything other than the electronics already installed in it. So, if this is the Apple TV 3 so to say, when Apple TV 4 comes out in a year, the only upgrade path will be to get yet another TV.
A TV has a general serviceable life span of at least 5 years and often as long as 12-15 years for a typical consumer. Granny will keep the TV until it can no longer be used as a furniture item (working or not) and there are some freaks who buy new TVs all the time, but are idiots for doing so.
In a world where we just threw away hundreds of millions of CRTs screens that no one knows how to recycle and became toxic landfill instead, to then do the same with another X number of million LCDs for no other reason but to add features which can fit into a wallet sized set top is irresponsible to the point of criminal.
If Apple were to release a TV as opposed to a set-top box, then there would be tons of people rushing out to get this TV and hang it on their walls. They would then take down the similar sized (or most likely larger) LCD/LED/Plasma TV they bought in the last 5 years and put it in another room which already has another TV and eventually, they'd throw away a perfectly good TV that was at the bottom of the picking order.
Then, there's the issue of the non-upgradable Apple culture. If Apple releases a TV it WILL be fashionable and it will be thin and it will be unable to hold anything other than the electronics already installed in it. So, if this is the Apple TV 3 so to say, when Apple TV 4 comes out in a year, the only upgrade path will be to get yet another TV.
A TV has a general serviceable life span of at least 5 years and often as long as 12-15 years for a typical consumer. Granny will keep the TV until it can no longer be used as a furniture item (working or not) and there are some freaks who buy new TVs all the time, but are idiots for doing so.
In a world where we just threw away hundreds of millions of CRTs screens that no one knows how to recycle and became toxic landfill instead, to then do the same with another X number of million LCDs for no other reason but to add features which can fit into a wallet sized set top is irresponsible to the point of criminal.
This is terrible news - fix iTunes first
Dude, fix the enormous pain associated with "synch'ing" iTunes libraries, before you take on another project.
Is there anything more asinine than "iTunes has detected other purchases from another iTunes library. Click here to delete freakin everything on your device, and THEN we'll add the songs you're trying to synch..." Oh wait, but then that isn't synch'ing at all.
Fix the product, then you can pass "Go", collect $200, and begin to head up the TV division at Apple.
Dude, fix the enormous pain associated with "synch'ing" iTunes libraries, before you take on another project.
Is there anything more asinine than "iTunes has detected other purchases from another iTunes library. Click here to delete freakin everything on your device, and THEN we'll add the songs you're trying to synch..." Oh wait, but then that isn't synch'ing at all.
Fix the product, then you can pass "Go", collect $200, and begin to head up the TV division at Apple.
This Apple television thing is really starting to sound true though it's unusual for Apple to be letting so much of this type of information out before the product is close for release. It's not like them to let competitors know what they're doing.
I can see Google trying to beat them to it. A lot of money is involved if they can change the advertising model on tv.
I can see Google trying to beat them to it. A lot of money is involved if they can change the advertising model on tv.
Possibly the one time in a MacRumors forum over the past two years this question was apropos and not annoying.
----------
Ah, the myth of the serial $100B company once again raises its head.
Yes, but that is my point, like I said. Mp3 players, smartphones, tablets was there, a very small marked. Then Apple picked up the tech at the right time and made something realy good out of it.
But that is not the case with the TV. TV is not a small marked in the "nerd community" or the underground like mp3 players, smartphones and tablets was when Apple came along and showed the others how to do it the right way. TVs are decades old, everyone have one and it's been like that for like..the last 50 years? So taking the TV in itself to a new level is A LOT more challenging than making mp3-players, phones and tablets was.
Good lord! Get your bicycle out of your mud hut and go and hug a tree somewhere.
I couldn't care less about what's green or not... Infact, I'm going to waste a whole can of hairspray in the air, just because of your post.
I don't think a TV would be a great idea because its cost would be prohibitive and most people already have TVs. The reason iPods took-off is because it was generally a new product - nobody owned one. It was relatively cheap too. Same thing for the iPad. As for the iPhone, they really didn't sell until they became subsidized. Plus, it generally accepted that one should buy a new cellphone about once every 2 years.
People who have bought a new TV in the last 5 years (a TV that is likely still in great shape) will not be throwing their TV out or selling it on eBay so they can buy another one for likely around $2,000 that does generally the same thing (except for having an Apple logo on it).
All the products that have been cash cows for Apple were in markets that had not matured (mp3 player, smartphone, and tablet markets). The TV market has matured. I hope Apple doesn't push this one through just to please Jobs's delirious dying wishes, it could be their downfall.
People who have bought a new TV in the last 5 years (a TV that is likely still in great shape) will not be throwing their TV out or selling it on eBay so they can buy another one for likely around $2,000 that does generally the same thing (except for having an Apple logo on it).
All the products that have been cash cows for Apple were in markets that had not matured (mp3 player, smartphone, and tablet markets). The TV market has matured. I hope Apple doesn't push this one through just to please Jobs's delirious dying wishes, it could be their downfall.
I see buying Apple products and other quality products as well as being far more green than what others I know do. They buy some crapy **** made in ching chong that fall apart within to years to save money.
I have used Apple products for ten years and have not thrown out any of it yet. Of course...the old G4 PowerMac is dusting in the basement and out of use....but.
I rather pay more for quality and duration because I realy abhore things going apart. It makes me sick, the whole "pay less for crap, throw it out and buy new crap". And this is not about trying to be green and hug trees. It is the other consumers buying cheep crap that make it an issue in the first place.
Apple TV Slot
Why not encourage TV manufacturing companies make a slot in their TV's which accepts Apple TV cards to make it functional as an Apple TV
Just my 2Cents
Why not encourage TV manufacturing companies make a slot in their TV's which accepts Apple TV cards to make it functional as an Apple TV
Just my 2Cents
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Guys, just read all 8 pages of this thread and I see lots of the same old stuff. But people like knightwrx keeps making THE key point which is then promptly dismissed as the "it'll be great" dreamers keep dreaming. Here's my try at it...
An Apple Television cannot be anything like Macs or iPods or iPhones. We can't look back and talk about how Apple revolutionized those markets and then take the leap that they can do the same for this one. Why? Because in every case, the key to the revolution was the marriage of hardware & software.
However, Apple has already isolated the software from the hardware in the TV space. It's called the
TV. That software does already run on all brands of TVs.
Imagine if Apple decided to openly license OS X and iOS to all brands of computer and portable devices makers. That would be the equivalent concept in those markets. If we could buy ANY computer with an endorsed version of OS X running on it, are we going to be as committed to only buy the hardware portion from Apple? If we could buy ANY smart phone or tablet design with an endorsed copy of iOS running on it, are we going to be as committed to only buy the hardware portion from Apple?
With iPhone 4S, there were many wanting a bigger screen, different form factor, etc. Some were clearly coveting some such hardware features long available in some Android phones. What if those very Android phones (hardware) could be purchased running an Apple-endorsed license of iOS?
The point is when the Apple software is mostly isolated from the Apple hardware, is it that hard to imagine that people would choose to maintain the full, rich, "magical" software experience on the hardware (not made by Apple that) they may already own?
That’s the problem with this. If there is a little set-top box that will fully deliver the software experience for about $99, an Apple-branded television will have to compete solely on hardware specs alone. If you strip out the software of OS X on a Mac or iOS on a iDevice, then the remaining hardware would have to be judged on it's own too. My iMac purchase made sense to me because of OS X, not because of the hardware on it's own. My iDevice purchase made sense to me because of iOS, not because of the hardware on it's own.
If theTV continues to co-exist with an Apple-branded television set, it's hard to imagine enough people- beyond the "I'll buy anything with an Apple logo on it and pay any price Apple wants" crowd- being willing to pay the premium on hardware alone. Certainly, we are smart enough to realize that an Apple television is going to be made by LG or Samsung or Sharp or similar. Certainly, we are smart enough to realize that whoever supplies that panel is probably going to also release it in their own branded television where it will probably sell for about 35%-40% less than the Apple-branded model. Then, all you have to do is imagine an TV in the equation to see that this would be very much like having iOS or OS X licenses available for anyones hardware.
Face time camera built in? Skype has been available on smart TVs for a couple of years now.
Siri built in? That's software. It can be in theTV and/or TV remote.
Unified, easy-to-use UI. That's software. It can be in theTV to deliver the exact same experience on any (hardware) panel.
Every dreamer concept that revolves around software is easily covered with the little box- no big panel required. To me, that implies 2 things:
Throw in the "razor-thin margins" vs. the Apple premium, the concept that people don't want to buy a new big screen TV every year or two, that there is little-to-no chance of some kind of subsidy model to allow part of the cost Apple demands to be paid by someone else, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, that for any such cable-bill-killer content plan (alacarte or not) to have to flow through broadband pipes almost always owned by the very same players that like the cable-bill revenues "as is" now... and I just don't see this making sense.
The key missing elements are companion rumors that would solve several related problems:
The only way to certainly overcome all of the related issues is to make Apple's replacement more lucrative for all of the dependent parties. For example, if the replacement can yield more money than "as is" for the content creators and if the replacement can yield more money than "as is" for the Internet pipe toll masters, etc. However, as soon as we accept that that is THE way, guess who is paying the extra to deliver that "more money" for all involved?
An Apple Television cannot be anything like Macs or iPods or iPhones. We can't look back and talk about how Apple revolutionized those markets and then take the leap that they can do the same for this one. Why? Because in every case, the key to the revolution was the marriage of hardware & software.
- We couldn't buy- say- a Dell or HP running OS X. And still can't.
- We couldn't buy- say- a Samsung, HTC, LG, Nokia, etc phone running iOS. And still can't
- We also can't run iOS on iPod-like or iPad-like hardware.
However, Apple has already isolated the software from the hardware in the TV space. It's called the
TV. That software does already run on all brands of TVs. Imagine if Apple decided to openly license OS X and iOS to all brands of computer and portable devices makers. That would be the equivalent concept in those markets. If we could buy ANY computer with an endorsed version of OS X running on it, are we going to be as committed to only buy the hardware portion from Apple? If we could buy ANY smart phone or tablet design with an endorsed copy of iOS running on it, are we going to be as committed to only buy the hardware portion from Apple?
With iPhone 4S, there were many wanting a bigger screen, different form factor, etc. Some were clearly coveting some such hardware features long available in some Android phones. What if those very Android phones (hardware) could be purchased running an Apple-endorsed license of iOS?
The point is when the Apple software is mostly isolated from the Apple hardware, is it that hard to imagine that people would choose to maintain the full, rich, "magical" software experience on the hardware (not made by Apple that) they may already own?
That’s the problem with this. If there is a little set-top box that will fully deliver the software experience for about $99, an Apple-branded television will have to compete solely on hardware specs alone. If you strip out the software of OS X on a Mac or iOS on a iDevice, then the remaining hardware would have to be judged on it's own too. My iMac purchase made sense to me because of OS X, not because of the hardware on it's own. My iDevice purchase made sense to me because of iOS, not because of the hardware on it's own.
If the
TV continues to co-exist with an Apple-branded television set, it's hard to imagine enough people- beyond the "I'll buy anything with an Apple logo on it and pay any price Apple wants" crowd- being willing to pay the premium on hardware alone. Certainly, we are smart enough to realize that an Apple television is going to be made by LG or Samsung or Sharp or similar. Certainly, we are smart enough to realize that whoever supplies that panel is probably going to also release it in their own branded television where it will probably sell for about 35%-40% less than the Apple-branded model. Then, all you have to do is imagine an TV in the equation to see that this would be very much like having iOS or OS X licenses available for anyones hardware.Face time camera built in? Skype has been available on smart TVs for a couple of years now.
Siri built in? That's software. It can be in the
TV and/or TV remote.Unified, easy-to-use UI. That's software. It can be in the
TV to deliver the exact same experience on any (hardware) panel. Every dreamer concept that revolves around software is easily covered with the little box- no big panel required. To me, that implies 2 things:
- This TV idea is just a rumor that keeps being recycled (and there are plenty of those associated with Apple)
- For it to fly, the TV box would probably have to be killed off (so that the software was no longer available separate from the hardware)
Throw in the "razor-thin margins" vs. the Apple premium, the concept that people don't want to buy a new big screen TV every year or two, that there is little-to-no chance of some kind of subsidy model to allow part of the cost Apple demands to be paid by someone else, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, that for any such cable-bill-killer content plan (alacarte or not) to have to flow through broadband pipes almost always owned by the very same players that like the cable-bill revenues "as is" now... and I just don't see this making sense.
The key missing elements are companion rumors that would solve several related problems:
- how can Apple's content delivery solution bypass the well established middlemen who happen to be the ones who would feel great pain if Apple takes their cable customers?
- how does this work in markets beyond the U.S. as Apple buying one or several cable providers and/or Sprint would still be a U.S.-centric solution?
- why do the players who currently make lots of money with the systems in place now want to support a replacement system where individual consumers would pay out a fraction of the current cash flows (for al-a-carte) and potentially also not see commercials (which also pay for the content-creation side of things)?
- Etc.
The only way to certainly overcome all of the related issues is to make Apple's replacement more lucrative for all of the dependent parties. For example, if the replacement can yield more money than "as is" for the content creators and if the replacement can yield more money than "as is" for the Internet pipe toll masters, etc. However, as soon as we accept that that is THE way, guess who is paying the extra to deliver that "more money" for all involved?
Last edited:
i remember the days when Apple was all about being creative. Just to give an example, the iMac DV was the very first affordable digital non linear video editing system.
Customers were called "users". But a decade later they want us to be "consumers" instead. Products are designed to make you buy contend, pay for it and sit back and to prevent you from touching anything that is inside.
A TV ist just the next logical step in that direction. I really think it is coming and there will be many people buying it.
I owned several Macs in my life and I have been thinking about buying a new iMac or even an iPad for some time. I finally decided it is not necessary and put the money on a racing bicycle instead. It was the right decision for me. So much fun. Devices that are designed just to consume are so boring. I do not even own a TV of any sort and I have no reason to get one...
Christian
Customers were called "users". But a decade later they want us to be "consumers" instead. Products are designed to make you buy contend, pay for it and sit back and to prevent you from touching anything that is inside.
A TV ist just the next logical step in that direction. I really think it is coming and there will be many people buying it.
I owned several Macs in my life and I have been thinking about buying a new iMac or even an iPad for some time. I finally decided it is not necessary and put the money on a racing bicycle instead. It was the right decision for me. So much fun. Devices that are designed just to consume are so boring. I do not even own a TV of any sort and I have no reason to get one...
Christian
No more cumbersome remote controls! Simply get up and walk over to the screen and touch it! Swipe between channels! Pinch Zoom in with two hand! Etc
The tablet market had stagnated because no one decided to apply today's technology to a 10-20 year-old idea. Tablets were DOA in the past because the technology just wasn't there yet. Tablets were these huge, obtrusive objects that defeated their own very purpose. The same could be said for the iPhone; the market was comfortable putting out garbage, but the technology was there to potentially make an awesome smartphone.
This is much different than the TV market, where there has been no stagnation. The TVs today are on the bleeding edge. The best technology existing today is being put into new TVs. In fact, one can say that the TV revolution already occurred with the advent and widespread sales of thin, flat panel TVs.
Now this is something I can get on board with, a new type of remote. Remotes have always been an after-thought. And they are very complex and cumbersome. If Apple could reinvent the remote I could see everyone with a TV buying one. You can also team it up with an ATV, sold separately. This will ensure Apple about $200 for the set.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I suggest you pretend that you already have an Apple Television now and do this with your existing set. Each time you use the remote to change channels, go over and swipe the screen too. Do some pinch zoom as well.
After about 1 day, how does that screen look from the couch?
But, the good part is that people would exercise more muscles than just their thumb.
Oh dear. A touch screen TV.
And no Siri for the TV either. What a dumb idea. Do these analysts even stop and think about what they are actually saying? How would Siri differentiate your voice from the voices coming out of your own TV?!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can see Siri working- as many others have shared in this thread- in a new remote with the next-gen
TV. Siri works when the master voice is close to the microphone. It is something that seems very logical as a hot new "Star Trek" feature to offer... but with a new TV (remote), not within a requirement to pay a couple of thousand for a new TV to get Siri. It's already in iOS; it's only a matter of time until an TV has Siri.However, if Apple wanted to make Siri work ONLY with a new TV, then they could process the audio coming out of the TV to screen it out from what Siri can hear. Then, Siri could only hear the sounds made other than through the TV. But, with some adjustments (audio pass through) in the next-gen
TV, they could do the same with it too (no full TV required).Looks like it's coming. All the naysayers can eat crow. The final piece of the media puzzle, the final screen to dominate. We all better start saving our pennies now.
I suggest you pretend that you already have an Apple Television now and do this with your existing set. Each time you use the remote to change channels, go over and swipe the screen too. Do some pinch zoom as well.
After about 1 day, how does that screen look from the couch?
But, the good part is that people would exercise more muscles than just their thumb.
you just got trolled, son.
While I am very much protective of the environment, try not to litter, recycle
to extremes etc. etc. I think you cannot prove that nobody knows how to recycle CRT's.
Especially Apple has started some time ago to get greener and you can send in your old Apple stuff for free.
Unfortunately and sadly as usual governments don't help, by not accepting e-waste or wanting to be paid extra for it.
So, what do people do: Into the trash, bushes whatever.
Now, the government's role is is something you should complain about!
LOL. Cute. Imagine though if actual intelligent people actually were this illogical in their arguments? Funny though.