Multiple Sources Suggest Apple Working on Television for as Early as 2012

[gugy]

So what's the point? Just integrating an Apple TV in a TV? Given the rate of change of technology, I prefer my TV to just be a dumb display - it's easy enough to swap $99 external boxes as technology improves, and a lot harder to replace 50+" TV's every couple years.

That's my whole argument why makes no sense for a consumer to be tied to an AIO set.
I have my flat display for 3 years and my previous CRT for 11. Both were great and I would have kept my previous one if wasn't for the new flat panel tech.
AppleTV is just $99 bucks so it's much easier to just replace it than an entire set that still delivers great picture. So Apple Television seems a dumb concept to me, unless they have something else besides just integrating ATV to it.

 

[harrier]

Hopefully I'll be able to view my ripped DVDs - currently I use Front Row which supposedly went away in Lion.

 

[voonyx]

Don't mistake your subjective opinion as a objective fact.

Yeah you're right...it's only happened with the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. But again, all those things were imminent right, without Apple?

I like how you're warning me for being subjective but your supposition that it woulda happened anyway is being touted as fact...right.

----------

That's my whole argument why makes no sense for a consumer to be tied to an AIO set.
I have my flat display for 3 years and my previous CRT for 11. Both were great and I would have kept my previous one if wasn't for the new flat panel tech.
AppleTV is just $99 bucks so it's much easier to just replace it than an entire set that still delivers great picture. So Apple Television seems a dumb concept to me, unless they have something else besides just integrating ATV to it.

Meh, Apple makes products people want. You don't really need an iPad but millions upon millions want them. Whatever product Apple has in mind will definitely be something that everyone can do without, but everyone will still want just because of how "trivial and obvious" it is.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So what's the point? Just integrating an Apple TV in a TV? Given the rate of change of technology, I prefer my TV to just be a dumb display - it's easy enough to swap $99 external boxes as technology improves, and a lot harder to replace 50+" TV's every couple years.

I am with you add in Apple tendancy to force obsolete things it will be even worse.
That along with the fact that the current Apple TV is nothing more than a toy to them and really over all not that great I have little hope of a TV made by Apple being any better.
Now a lot of people will buy it because it has an Apple label.

 

[gugy]

Yeah you're right...it's only happened with the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. But again, all those things were imminent right, without Apple?

I like how you're warning me for being subjective but your supposition that it woulda happened anyway is being touted as fact...right.


----------
[
/COLOR]

Meh, Apple makes products people want. You don't really need an iPad but millions upon millions want them. Whatever product Apple has in mind will definitely be something that everyone can do without, but everyone will still want just because of how "trivial and obvious" it is.

Sorry but your feedback is not anything besides what people want (or maybe you want ). Apple is a company that seeks profit, unless there is a good reason to enter that market and provide a revolutionary product that will sell tons, just integrating ATV to a television will not cut it.

 

[KnightWRX]

your supposition that it woulda happened anyway is being touted as fact...right.

I have made no such suppositions.

 

[voonyx]

Which would be what, really? Just look at this thread. Sure, Apple could surprise us completely, who knows, but more likely - if anything - is what has already been asked for in this thread. We have the vision. We have the technology. The barrier is the power-structures one has to break to make the product work as one envisioned.

It doesn't matter if it's been asked for since the 1800s. If Apple is the one to do it correctly, then saying "it would have happened regardless" is a silly childish reaction.

See above. Surely, if one manages to break the structures of old others will join in too. Once structures are anewed, barriers are virtually unexistant. Who will break them first? God only knows, but they wont break them through technological innovation.

Apple will be the first. And then others will try to copy.

Only a fool would see the obvious as innovative.

Yeah innovative hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

 

[flux73]

I think it's a given that if they built a TV, it would be beautiful in design. But as noted by many, it wouldn't be enough. Here's my wishlist for an AppleTV and what I think could make for a game-changing TV:

1) wireless HD connection built in - box no longer needs to be hooked up to the TV. No more reaching for the back of the TV. If this happens, they'll also have a new AppleTV box that will have wirelessHD built in. Sale of the TV will result in a sale of the AppleTV as well. Current implementations are aftermarket, clunky, and expensive. It needs user-friendliness fine-tuning, proper marketing, and good design, both areas of Apple's expertise.

2) OLED screen at least 32 inches for at most $999. Harder for me to imagine this by 2012, but if anybody can pull off mass production of new screen tech - it'd be Apple (e.g. Retina Display). This is the tech that would suck in a LOT of technophiles. If you ever saw Sony's little 11" OLED tv at a SonyStyle store, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's THAT much better than an LCD screen. Even better than plasma which I'm still a fan of. I don't think it's likely that Apple would go with an LCD screen. Even at Apple stores, they use Pioneer plasma screens to demo the ATV. Someone mentioned Nanosys. Their tech may be more practical to develop by next year, but I don't know enough about it - cost or quality-wise.

3) subscription based fees that cost less than cable. Hardware won't be enough. Gotta present an option that is more affordable AND more convenient than cable. Everyone already hates cable companies including the content providers. Just need to give them an excuse to ditch their cable boxes. Will be hard to pull off now that Comcast owns NBC. But Apple has the cash to be able to make up for whatever revenues a company would lose by pissing off Comcast/Time Warner. Must-have channels would be ESPN, CNN, DiscoveryHD, AMC, and Food Network (in addition to the usual - ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and CW). Good channels to also have are TLC, USA network, TBS, TNT, and E!

4) live sports. They already have NFL and MLB in ATV. Now add in NHL, MLS, and college sports, and you can bet the cable companies will be shaking in their boots.

 

[GorgonPhone]

apple can afford to experiment and play around they have the money.. and steve jis gone so there is n one to stop them..lol

 

[jlc1978]

Originally Posted by DanteMann
Can't wait to see the world's first circular, triangular, or any non-rectangular TV. Your move Apple.

To see the world's first circular tv, try the GE Octagon from 1928; although others may pre-date it.
There's a reason TV screen size is measured by the diagonal size - and it dates back to the original physical construction of TV tubes.

----------

Well, isps really dont have that much say here. Dont even think capped connections exist anymore, and they were quite rare even five years ago.

I guess that depends where you are - in the US, usage is capped although few people hit the caps; but then agin few people stream a lot of high def content.

 

[bushido]

TVs wouldnt even fit in the Apple Store LOL and apple isnt a "TV" manufacturer so they would rely on "samsung" etc for the parts therefore why not just get a basic tv without the apple "tax"

 

[liavman]

Reading the comments in the old thread linked to this article is quite informative. (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/28026/). MapQuest seemed to have called the iPad (tablet) even in 2003 in the context of a similar PDA or No PDA discussion.

Even there, our imagination back in 2003 did not accomodate a multi-touch device, the iPad turned out to be. So we have to really go out of our own limitations on imagining capacity to see what Apple can do in the TV space.

We need to consider the physical design, capabilities and User Interface. In addition we also need to see what Apple's Go to Market strategy is. Does Apple really need the content providers to get on board for any major reboot of the industry ( like music labels for the iPod and carriers for the iPhone )?

"Look Ma, no wires" is something people can relate to since people hate wires and the headaches of settings things up.

Subsidized TV with a subscription package from a content provider is a possible go-to-market strategy.

 

[AlfieJr]

The Answer?

First, everyone is just guessing. these Apple Television rumors aren't even linked to leaks about new hardware prototypes out of Asia. which makes them dubious.

Second, the key to each Apple innovation - starting with the Mac long time ago, then the iPod, iPhone, and iPad - is to reinvent the UI of an existing complicated product to make it truly user/consumer friendly. which does require some hardware innovations too, and also new market concepts, but it's all built around the new UI.

Third, Jobs has pointed out how bad the UI is today for all television related products. the tedious on screen cursor menu first invented back in the days of VCR's, and an IR remote control full of confusing buttons (a stripped down version of which is still used now by Apple TV).

so if Apple is going to enter the television business, it is going to reinvent this lousy UI, and then design the hardware around the new UI. so:

(a) the direct path to a new UI for Apple is to turn it all into an iOS app, to run on your iDevice. no more IR candybar remote.

(b) the direct path to hardware for this is simply to build the guts/ports of Apple TV into a Thunderbolt Display. with some larger screen sizes of course, and at competitive high-end price points.

but (c) the direct path to a new market concept for this is the hard part. you would still need a cable box or some equivalent to access much of the popular content.

Apple could come out with an (a) + (b) Apple Television very soon, yes. but without (c) it would still be a "hobby" product. a much better UI than today's Apple TV + any television, but not a disruptive innovation that will change the industry.

so until Apple can solve (c), i think all these rumors are not going anywhere.

so after taking a nice bath and thinking about this some more, the direct thing for Apple to do to solve (c) is to buy DISH Corp. with a market cap of only $4.5 billion (vs. Direct TV's $35 billion), Apple can certainly afford it.

Apple would convert the service to land line internet based (maybe even spin off the satellite service). the whole point would be to get access to all of DISH existing contracts for content with all the major providers. and then re-package them the Apple way - a la carte subscriptions like iTunes rather than fixed bundles, the biggest gripe of consumers with today's cable services. and no more set top box, just the pretty new Apple Television.

now that WOULD disrupt the industry.

 

[kiljoy616]

I just don't understand why they would want to do this.

I rarely watch TV shows on a TV.

How often do people actually upgrade there TV's?

Only reason is if its not going to be a 1080p tv but something like 4K tv a person can dream but I guess that is all it is a big fat dream.

 

[Cjm1]

Hmmm

Will it blend? knowing Apple a television set would be amazing like their displays. But they should just stick to making computers and handheld devices. if i were to spend Apple money on a television i would go to Bang & Olufsen first!

 

[kiljoy616]

so after taking a nice bath and thinking about this some more, the direct thing for Apple to do to solve (c) is to buy DISH Corp. with a market cap of only $4.5 billion (vs. Direct TV's $35 billion), Apple can certainly afford it.

Apple would convert the service to land line internet based (maybe even spin off the satellite service). the whole point would be to get access to all of DISH existing contracts for content with all the major providers. and then re-package them the Apple way - a la carte subscriptions like iTunes rather than fixed bundles, the biggest gripe of consumers with today's cable services. and no more set top box, just the pretty new Apple Television.

now that WOULD disrupt the industry.

Way to much expenditure just to bring tv to the faithful I don't see it.

 

[FroMann]

I'll just stick with my 37" LG.

 

[firewood]

So what's the point? Just integrating an Apple TV in a TV? Given the rate of change of technology, I prefer my TV to just be a dumb display - it's easy enough to swap $99 external boxes as technology improves, and a lot harder to replace 50+" TV's every couple years.

This is almost exactly the same argument against the first integrated iMacs. People wanted their expensive NEC and Sony (et.al.) monitors and Mac/PC boxen separate. But less and less people actually buy those separate PC components any more. Integrated, with less cables and wires (and more planned obsolescence, as with laptops), seems to be the way the market is trending these days.

 

[flux73]

Did a little more research on Nanosys. Here's an interesting interview that building43.com (Robert Scoble) conducted with the CEO of Nanosys, Jason Hartlove: http://youtu.be/GFUO6MxC4rg

The interview is interesting for the explanation of how their tech works and how it doesn't affect the price or power of current LED/LCD displays. It takes practically no retooling of manufacturing plants. It even sounds like it's possible to retrofit current LCD screens.

Also, there's a VERY interesting comment Scoble makes at 15:31:

Scoble: "Very interesting. I have no idea why Steve Jobs let you come over and talk to me [nervous laugh]..."

Jason Hartlove: "No comment. [smiles]"

Did I use the word "interesting" enough times?

 

[liavman]

flux73, thanks for the link to that video. Very interesting. His SJ related comment is interesting and understandable. He already said they are working with the various tablet manufacturers. But since this is a display technology it should be available to all tablet vendors but given Apple's strategy of cornering the supply for display components, and Nanosys will be ramping up production over a period of time, I would not be surprised if Apple already has already bought the option to buy them all up if they so choose to use this technology on the next iPad. It does not seem to fall in the time frame of iPad 3 though.

 

[AlfieJr]

Way to much expenditure just to bring tv to the faithful I don't see it.

$4.5 billion for DISH? it's not just about the TV hardware sales. it's about completing the Apple ecosystem by adding the "holy grail" - the living room television.

Apple can't just site on all its huge - and growing - pile of cash forever. that would be stupid. it needs to use it to build its future, strategically. since access to media content is the crucial roadblock, that is what it needs to use its cash for somehow - to blow the roadblock up.

 

[brewcitywi]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8K2)

I only hope they don't enter too early. There will be such a spotlight on a new product that any hint of the lack of perfection will get amplified, and cloud the power of the past product announcements! It has to be amazing, or wait a little longer!

 

[darkplanets]

Not going to happen. At least, not likely.

How often do you buy a new TV? It doesn't make revision cycles exactly nice, and no one (or very few) will purchase a new TV every year. This now means that hardware needs to remain relatively stagnant to support the general population, however since this is a "smart" device with apps, etc it would benefit greatly from year over year hardware improvements. Unless you can break the paradigm and get people to purchase TV's yearly, you cant run an evolving ecosystem like iOS if it's an integrated unit. You would be alienating a huge part of your consumer base on a yearly basis if it took an iOS approach, unless new software revisions were ratcheted down to past revisions hardware, thus limiting the softwares capabilities.

 

[Oletros]

so after taking a nice bath and thinking about this some more, the direct thing for Apple to do to solve (c) is to buy DISH Corp. with a market cap of only $4.5 billion (vs. Direct TV's $35 billion), Apple can certainly afford it.

Apple would convert the service to land line internet based (maybe even spin off the satellite service). the whole point would be to get access to all of DISH existing contracts for content with all the major providers. and then re-package them the Apple way - a la carte subscriptions like iTunes rather than fixed bundles, the biggest gripe of consumers with today's cable services. and no more set top box, just the pretty new Apple Television.

now that WOULD disrupt the industry.

Mmm, USA only?

 

[samcraig]

The thing is, are we the same kind of people who said the first Apple iPhone wouldn't work?

Television has stagnated to a point where nobody really watches television anymore. It's filled with garbage ads and other things.

If Apple can come out with a Apple TV that's pretty much a smart TV, which obliterates the TIVO market, the Netflix market and everything else. I think it may be able to work.

They don't need to. They came out with a $99 device which allows anyone with a TV (and on any budget for the TV) to enjoy everything Apple has to offer.

In my opinion (notice how I am prefacing this) is that people have all sorts of budgets, design requirements, size desires, etc that unless Apple goes full force and makes a COMPLETE line - there will be a market - but it won't be massively adopted.

You can spend $399 on a HDTV now and get a $99 apple tv2. Or you could spend 2500-4000 on a huge hdtv and spend $99 on the device. That's a huge variance in customers and selling opportunity. And apple wins with just creating the $99 add on OR if they make deals with manufacturers and just license it.