I don't see Apple actually making a TV (unless they sell it very competitively priced). I think instead they'll just license the hardware and software to existing TV makers. Steve Jobs has stated that people don't like to mess with separate boxes. (and I agree)
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.
Multiple Sources Suggest Apple Working on Television for as Early as 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$1000 for a 32 inch tv??! You can buy a 3D 42-47 inch LED or Plasma for that much now. I don't think apple needs to get into the TV business. They wont "re-invent" anything by doing so.
You can already do this. There's an iPad/iPhone app called..."Remote"
----------
It sounds like all you think they will do is produce an expensive TV. Who says? How do so many people who know about Apple's history still think people will pay extra money for something just because it has the Apple logo on it? Use a *little* imagination people. Jeez.
An Apple TV would probably be as much like any other TV as the iPhone was like any other phone.
Last edited:
No, its common sense. Apple or not, someone will get it right. Internet, and digital distribution, will change every single content industry of old. Its not a matter of if, but a matter of when. This has nothing to do with diminishing the visionry of Jobs (or anyone else). Its just stating the obvious. Apple, or someone else, may bring this change out sooner (rather than later), but happen it will. One can only withstand forces of nature for so long, sooner or later we will find a way, and with that the gatekeepers of old will have to look elsewhere for pseudo-monopoly rents. Simple as that.
Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell. That others, regardless, will follow is given. Once the structures break it'll be like opening the floodgates. Sad that you cannot see this.
Yeah innovative hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?
No need for hindsight when you already predicted the future.
----------
catch 22. here (in sweden), hd-streaming is fairly common, with most channels offering on demand services through the web - all kick started by the "state tv". but, as always the content owners have final call. as long as networks are so tied to content production as they are (especially in the states), Apple will have a hard time unless they decide to open that money bag of theirs (meaning theyll have to be willing to take big losses until they reach some form of significant market share).
----------
Think you answered your own question. Unless Apple is in the business of producing content they will depend on those filling your TV with stuff. If the very cable companies that Apple seek to replace are the ones that finance the very content Apple needs, then... well, obviously there's a problem. One that perhaps (at this very moment) is significantly tougher to solve than was the case with music.
Movies should be simpler. There you don't have the same vertical integration (content+distribution) as we see in television. At least not if my industry knowledge (which is quite lacking) is somewhat correct.
So, you have to replace a perfectly good TV with an expensive new TV just to get GoogleTV built-in. Not a good option for most -- that's why GoogleTV STBs were offered.
What appropriation exactly ? Google made a web browser for TVs that could *gasp* browse the web. On the web, these channels made their content available. They decided to block Google TV's user-agent. It's ok for people to get this content on their computers, they just don't want people getting it on TVs. Of course, nothing stops you from connecting an HTPC to a TV and still "appropriate yourself" with this content for free...
What exactly was Google stealing from these folks ? These folks were already giving out this content on their websites, Google only made a web browser for TVs.
(And again, this was covered in my post).
An individual consumer, connecting an HTPC to his TV, to access freely-available web content according to the rules of the content provider is one thing.
Goggle was appropriating content that does not belong to them to make money for Google -- whatever their motives or methods.
Google tried to pull a fast one -- and were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Google knows this! That is why they are negating for access to the content -- as they should have done before "promising" it to the GoogleTV consumer.
From your earlier post:
Fixed that there for you.
Wow, Apple hasn't even entered the market and already we're getting this rewriting of history that we have to correct...
You need to broaden your search (or research):
Apple TV
Finally, you really should get that eye-roll thing looked into! Aside from being rude and demeaning -- it could be a sign of a greater disorder.
What if the ipad WAS the atv? Why put hardware into a dumb display to make it smart, when you can use your smart device to power it? Of course you'd put some minor brains in it, as you dont want your mobile device to work overtime for nothing, but perhaps you get the point... All the TV needs to understand is "fetch this, mkay?".
Granted, technology may not be mature enough today, but it soon will be.
See? I just "revolutionized" the way we interact with our TV in less than five minutes. How "innovative" of me. (If it weren't for the fact that is so damn obvious and waiting to happen).
Heck, i guess i should file a patent. Let the trolling begin. Sigh.
Again, a web browser on a TV accessing publicly available web content. What was Google "appropriating" exactly ? Is Apple appropriating content that does not belong to them by virtue of shipping Safari on every Mac ? Of course not.
AppleTV and GoogleTV are nothing alike btw. Once is a streaming device for access to iTunes content, the other is an App/Web platform for your TV.
It is. Motorola did essentially this with the Motorola Atrix and the TV dock. I doubt Apple would copy Motorola.
That only works if you're sitting straight in front of it though. Watching it at an angle would be a real pain.
chances are any such contracts are highly specific, meaning even if Apple took over they could not necessarily change very much.
As a consumer, I'm happy to know there is companies out there catering to me. Not everything needs to be enterprise grade electronics/computing.
Why not take a picture of a non-concept? After all, they do exist. Quite impractical for watching TV though; very nice for gaming (and working).
However, with most content being 16:9, and those screens being anything but 16:9 for most purposes itll look plain stupid (just like those ultra-wide cinema TV's).
That was my initial thought too...
Do you think the CableCos are going to accept GoogleTV's manipulation and repurposing of their content just because Moogle makes the STB?
What about other CableCos that don't use 'Nix boxes -- as I understand ATT u-verse STB is windows based (that explains a lot of things)?
After thinking about it, I believe that Moogle doesn't have enough leverage to make this happen. The CableCos would simply contract other manufacturers to build their STBs.
It is a whole 'bother discussion, but I suspect that the Google purchase of MMI has put them in the situation where: anything they do to change it will make it worse..
Again, a web browser on a TV accessing publicly available web content. What was Google "appropriating" exactly ? Is Apple appropriating content that does not belong to them by virtue of shipping Safari on every Mac ? Of course not.
AppleTV and GoogleTV are nothing alike btw. Once is a streaming device for access to iTunes content, the other is an App/Web platform for your TV.
It is. Motorola did essentially this with the Motorola Atrix and the TV dock. I doubt Apple would copy Motorola.
That only works if you're sitting straight in front of it though. Watching it at an angle would be a real pain.
Docking sort of beats the purpose though. As long as you have a dumb-smart-remote-slave in the TV (so that you dont eat precious battery) you really shouldnt need anything else. Use DLNA to take over the screen, use handheld for user-input (plus a dedicated GUI, different from that on the TV) and what? We should be good to go, right? Instructions could be sent same way as the picture (if not, its not like we're lacking alternatives here).
Instead of adding more devices to our lives, shouldnt we work on making them invisible? :- )
I think MacRumor's great rating system will tell you what you think.
Regarding similarity or non similarity of tablets: theregister has a quick review of ten cheap tablets here http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/27/ten_budget_android_tablets/ . If you look at the tablets, I think it is quite evident that there is one that looks very similar to an iPad, one that is photographed from an angle that makes it hard to decide, and all the others look clearly different. And they are all rectangular.
This is assuming that Google is actually interested in competing on "content", something they have yet to ever show any sign off (no, not even with the book-copying thing).
Google wants data. Its really that easy. If playing ball means theyll get that, they will be more than happy.
(ok, theyre also in the ad-business, but im sure they can work out a win-win here).
I believe that they already in the game (of delivering content to the livingroom) -- that's what the AppleTV is -- a seat at the table.
I wonder if Apple needs to provide an Apple-branded, large-screen HDTV to win the game.
Simply put, what is the distribution mechanism and profit potential in the large-screen HDTV market?
Content is King! If Apple can find a way to access content as it arrives in the home, manipulate it, and deliver it to multiple "displays" -- then they will be able to set the rules of the game -- if only by doing it better than the competition.
... The recent article on the onion:
New Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'I'm Thinking Printers'
makes me wonder if TV Sets could have been just as appropriate:
yeah. but they would more leverage - DISH' current 15 million subscribers - to press negotiations with. so far with just iTunes, they've been unable to make the mediacos budge.
I don't need Apple to build a TV. What a waste of time to make a TV's UI more friendly... I use the power button, volume, mute and input buttons, and that's it. Apple can simplify that if they want but I'm not paying more for it. Unlike a computer, my TV's UI doesn't determine my experience using the product - the price, picture quality and sound does.
If Apple would like to revolutionize the TV industry like they did with music, BY ALL MEANS!!!
If Apple would like to revolutionize the TV industry like they did with music, BY ALL MEANS!!!
I think Apple does not have to seek the help of the cable companies since they only aggregate others' content. ( they are like the music retailer, if I may, and for iPod, Apple went straight to the labels ). In the U.S. it is a bit odd that Comcast and Time warner are in both segments. I think the situation is similar to music labels, 5 or 6 companies are owners of majority of the cable channels. The cable companies are already starting to see an erosion in their subscriber base due to Netflix and other online content. So even Comcast and Time Warner have enough incentives to get on board.