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

[mrtravel123]

We have to remember that Apple thinks out of the box, literally. They won't just create a 50" TV and slap an Apple logo on it. Nor will they just create a 50" TV that is much like the current Apple TV BOX. We'd have to imagine something far more than that. Think of your TV being able to have "computer power" and being able to download apps. Think of a built-in webcam for using your TV for chatting. Consider how things like iCloud, Hulu and iTunes would allow a user to have easy access to the web, music, downloadable content, etc.

Really, an Apple TV is could be yet another way for Apple to create a new market for needs that people don't even realize they have. For the most part, our TVs are pretty dumb right now. Most TVs just play whatever they're told to. There is no integrated computer or integrated wifi, internet connectivity, etc. Everyone has to do these things with their laptops and iPads. And, as we're seeing, people are willing to easily pay $600 for an iPad and $1,700 for a MacBook Pro. So, Apple has MANY technologies and ideas that can be incorporated into a TV. Steve Jobs has certainly been involved in this and he won't be making a second mistake twice. He and Apple have captured the attention of many people and IF he does it right, it could be a revolutionary jump from a dumb TV to an interactive TV with processing power and web connectivity. But, the difficult part is that so many people have just purchased flat TVs in the past 2 - 4 years. So, who wants to go out and buy another flat TV now? It's not like the iPad which is NEW and wasn't meant to replace anything. Any popularity with the Apple TV would come slowly... and this is what could hurt it. iPods, Iphones and Ipads were revolutionary and everyone wanted one because they were "firsts" in most regards.

 

[divinox]

As per the usual, you've missed the point. People were making smartphones before the iPhone too. What I meant was that OEMs/Google will come out with a new completely redesigned TV with the same type of functionality as whatever the Apple product is.

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.

Secondly, technology is always progressing to something...the point is if you're doing nothing about it, it seems like a silly cop out to say "oh yeah??? well we woulda done that eventually!"

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.

(Ok, i probably should've mentioned infrastructure up in the first paragraph, but i'll pretend for now that its good enough as is).

Only a fool would try to pass off some hypothetical "it woulda happened anyway" as proof that it woulda happened anyway...

Only a fool would see the obvious as innovative.

Like I said, we'll see Apple release this product whatever it is, and then the hundreds of OEMs will start making their own versions. Only a fool would try to deny that that'll happen too...of course, "they woulda done it anyway" is the apologist response.

The old models are bound to break. It is a given. Question is when, how and why. Apple may or may not be part of that change. Regardless, what will follow is obvious.

 

[marksman]

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I want a remote with a touchpad on it Gogo apple

----------

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Everyone thought an iPhone was going to be an iPod in a phone.

arn

Obviously you don't get it. There is no need for Apple to commandeer the dumb display, just to pack inside of it this years latest technology. They can easily do that with a small box over hdmi....oh wait, they already do!!

What could possibly be offered besides built in FaceTime cam (worthless), that cant be offered through an hdmi box? Absolutely nothing, which is why this rumor is a joke.

----------

Take the components of that apple tv 2 and spread them out over the inside of that 60" plasma and see what you get.

What you get is overpriced nonsense that can't be upgraded year to year.

You are quite the forward and creative thinker

 

[divinox]

We have to remember that Apple thinks out of the box, literally. They won't just create a 50" TV and slap an Apple logo on it. Nor will they just create a 50" TV that is much like the current Apple TV BOX. We'd have to imagine something far more than that. Think of your TV being able to have "computer power" and being able to download apps. Think of a built-in webcam for using your TV for chatting. Consider how things like iCloud, Hulu and iTunes would allow a user to have easy access to the web, music, downloadable content, etc.

Really, an Apple TV is could be yet another way for Apple to create a new market for needs that people don't even realize they have. For the most part, our TVs are pretty dumb right now. Most TVs just play whatever they're told to. There is no integrated computer or integrated wifi, internet connectivity, etc. Everyone has to do these things with their laptops and iPads. And, as we're seeing, people are willing to easily pay $600 for an iPad and $1,700 for a MacBook Pro. So, Apple has MANY technologies and ideas that can be incorporated into a TV. Steve Jobs has certainly been involved in this and he won't be making a second mistake twice. He and Apple have captured the attention of many people and IF he does it right, it could be a revolutionary jump from a dumb TV to an interactive TV with processing power and web connectivity. But, the difficult part is that so many people have just purchased flat TVs in the past 2 - 4 years. So, who wants to go out and buy another flat TV now? It's not like the iPad which is NEW and wasn't meant to replace anything. Any popularity with the Apple TV would come slowly... and this is what could hurt it. iPods, Iphones and Ipads were revolutionary and everyone wanted one because they were "firsts" in most regards.

How could it be revolutionary when its already been done? When its been written about like, last century? Come on. Stop with the buzzwords already. Would it be neat? Most likely. Lets leave it at that?

----------

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I want a remote with a touchpad on it Gogo apple

----------

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)




You are quite the forward and creative thinker

Like the one Sharp made back in 2007 you mean?

p.s. there are third party products that allow you to turn your iphone (or ipod/ipad i assume) in to a remote.

 

[Binarymix]

.

This.

It's all coming together.

If Apple and pico tech got together and made the current pico technology far superior, I could see a new Apple TV with pico built in, mounted on your ceiling or wall mount.

Imagine a $250/$350/$500? TV. No screens, just use your wall, with all content streamed wirelessly through an iTunes TV subscription ($30-$50/mo) or your own library through home sharing.

All content available same day as broadcast after deals worked out with the major broadcasting companies.

This would slaughter all competition from cable/sat providers to TV manufacturers.

Remember, Apple recently acquired applepico.com, and there are patents showing the projection tech. In iPads/iPhones. This would just be one step further.

Maybe wishful thinking, but who knows.

Oh and of course, audio would be streamed through AirPlay to wireless speakers of your choice.

 

[Bigdaddyguido]

Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

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.

Fully agree! I love the thought of iOS and all it has to offer to the TV, especially with AirPlay! I love it! but I love my Samsung televisions too. (At this point they are really just displays for AppleTV and Dexter when the new season starts.)

Exactly. If Apple were to keep their law of high margins, they'd have to sell the TV for at least $999. As we've seen in every other industry they've revolutionized, they have to be able to do something in the space no one else is doing. I cannot, for the life of me, think of what a TV could do that the apple tv couldn't. The apple TV has 2 wires, and even those will disappear in a few years as wireless bandwidths improve and wireless charging becomes a reality. Why build a whole tv when the advantages will onlybe recognizable for 5 years tops?

Also, how would they cope with updates? Even if the TV did do something no other TV/set top box combo can do, in 2 years when the software improves past the point of the old hardware, are they going to expect everyone drops another thousand on a new tv rather than replacing a small apple tv? (which could more easily drop to $50 or so in the future).

Finally, different rooms need different tv sizes. Is apple really going to start offering 5 different models of the same expensive product? This seems very unlikely.

If apple does release a tv, it'll be the first sign to me that they are no longer the same revolutionary company, and that their glory days are behind them.

 

[Saladinos]

The only real thing they could gain by being inside the TV is direct channel access (i.e. PVR functionality). They could also do this via an external box, but it bloats the size of the box and adds cost. It is also, as SJ mentioned, extremely balkanised, with different regional standards and connectors and then there's the whole PayTV thing. Yuck, as they say.

Now, what's the solution to this whole TV standards nonsense? Doing it over the internet, of course - IPTV! Microsoft has been trying (unsuccessfully) to push in that direction for decades.

Now, of course, the situation is made murkier by the iPad. Many cable operators, paytv providers and broadcasters are making their content available over the internet via apps and websites. The great thing is that this is happening all over the world, driven by consumer demand. That means that much of that obscure television data is available in iOS-compatible streaming formats.

That is a powerful advantage that Microsoft's IPTV efforts didn't have. If Apple opened up the AppleTV to 3rd party apps, you would think any of these iOS apps could be ported if Apple could provide both the providers and consumers with a clear incentive to buy in to Apple's box. Apple could also choose to try and push an iTunes-store style revamp of the TV industry, and try to break the huge packages and endless subscriptions with more of a pay-as-you-go style subscription for individual channels or even series. Imagine building your own TV subscription based on only the channels or series that interested you, spanning across providers and (in my ideal world) even countries.

Apple has a lot of good options for TV. They have said they have no love for the complexity involved in shipping televisions that can work across different providers and different countries, and streaming this data is the obvious solution. The real challenge is getting all of the rights issues in place to actually offer this kind of fairytale service.

Then again, Apple has overturned industries before, like with the iPod and the iPhone. It stands to reason that if they want to take the TV industry, they're going to have an uphill climb in the legal department as much as in engineering. They may be looking to how the sheer consumer demand of the iPhone bent the will of the carriers once they found a launch partner (and they did apparently get turned down by some carriers at first) as a model.

That's the kind of change that you can't do with a box, but you might be able to with a whole TV set due to how much easier it is to drive that demand.

 

[Bigdaddyguido]

Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

We have to remember that Apple thinks out of the box, literally. They won't just create a 50" TV and slap an Apple logo on it. Nor will they just create a 50" TV that is much like the current Apple TV BOX. We'd have to imagine something far more than that. Think of your TV being able to have "computer power" and being able to download apps. Think of a built-in webcam for using your TV for chatting. Consider how things like iCloud, Hulu and iTunes would allow a user to have easy access to the web, music, downloadable content, etc.

Really, an Apple TV is could be yet another way for Apple to create a new market for needs that people don't even realize they have. For the most part, our TVs are pretty dumb right now. Most TVs just play whatever they're told to. There is no integrated computer or integrated wifi, internet connectivity, etc. Everyone has to do these things with their laptops and iPads. And, as we're seeing, people are willing to easily pay $600 for an iPad and $1,700 for a MacBook Pro. So, Apple has MANY technologies and ideas that can be incorporated into a TV. Steve Jobs has certainly been involved in this and he won't be making a second mistake twice. He and Apple have captured the attention of many people and IF he does it right, it could be a revolutionary jump from a dumb TV to an interactive TV with processing power and web connectivity. But, the difficult part is that so many people have just purchased flat TVs in the past 2 - 4 years. So, who wants to go out and buy another flat TV now? It's not like the iPad which is NEW and wasn't meant to replace anything. Any popularity with the Apple TV would come slowly... and this is what could hurt it. iPods, Iphones and Ipads were revolutionary and everyone wanted one because they were "firsts" in most regards.

You're right that apple only releases things if they provide functionality never seen/imagined before. What would the tv do that an apple tv couldn't? Apps, streaming, AirPlay, all of that the apple tv has covered. I guess apple could show off some kinect-like technology but a)where the hell would they pull that out of? and b) the kinect is a set top box, so why wouldn't apple just make the apple tv bigger again?

The goal of a device like this is market share, on what planet could apple sell more thousand dollar TVs than hundred dollar boxes?

 

[divinox]

There are many fiefdoms (CableCos, Broadcast Networks, Local Stations, Content Owners, Content Creators, etc.) in the current content delivery system -- and each wants control and/or their piece of the action.

The only way I can think that Apple could play in this game is to offer something that the others want so Apple could deliver their (the others) content with "Apple style".

One thing that comes to mind is bandwidth -- what if Apple had bandwidth that the others desired or needed to improve their offerings.


In 2012, there will be an auction of much of the TV broadcast spectrum that was relinquished when TV went entirely digital.

This spectrum is sought for cell phones and/or TV usage.

The bidding is expected to be quite active, and to involve $ Billions.

Hmmm...

Yup, we've seen those all over. Apparently with some improvements you can end up with 100mbit wireless using those frequencies. We still have the issue of content though.

 

[Binarymix]

Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)



You're right that apple only releases things if they provide functionality never seen/imagined before. What would the tv do that an apple tv couldn't? Apps, streaming, AirPlay, all of that the apple tv has covered. I guess apple could show off some kinect-like technology but a)where the hell would they pull that out of? and b) the kinect is a set top box, so why wouldn't apple just make the apple tv bigger again?

The goal of a device like this is market share, on what planet could apple sell more thousand dollar TVs than hundred dollar boxes?

They could make a killing selling a cheaper, high profit magin product like I mentioned above though.

 

[marksman]

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; nl-nl) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

People here are thinking as an apple tv as they do an iphone or ipad, a tv can have quad a6 processors, there is alot more space then an ipad when you dont need a battery. Why do people buy cinema displays if they can also buy a cheap benq one? Because its apple and proven for quality! Why do people buy bang and olufsen tv's at 4000 euros? Because the quality is miles apart from a samsung or sharp

This is a very good point. Apple would be much less constrained by form factor and power and thus provide a platform that would survive for many years as part of the apple ecosystem.

 

[dicklacara]

Yup, we've seen those all over. Apparently with some improvements you can end up with 100mbit wireless using those frequencies. We still have the issue of content though.

You missed the point entirely -- if Apple had the bandwidth (delivery capability), they would have leverage to negotiate mutially-beneficial deals with the content feifdoms -- as a contributor/co-equal rather than as a outsider/competitor.

 

[divinox]

You missed the point entirely -- if Apple had the bandwidth (delivery capability), they would have leverage to negotiate deals with the content feifdoms -- as a contributor/co-equal rather than as a outsider/competitor.

content producers oftentimes happen to be tightly coupled with network owners*. no network, no content. that's the knot to solve here. if the networks feel like they are being made obsolete they will block, and with them having control over content they are likely to succeed.

(in offering a choice one could of course think that producers would take higher risks and go for the "open channel". however, by doing so they first need to change their model of operation, and second risk their relationship with the networks meaning a failure could be fatal).

* things may have changed in the industry that i am not aware of. if so, i guess the problem is lesser.

 

[soapsuds]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

When the first rumors of an iPhone started, I was excited because the existing phones had terrible UIs and I knew Apple could do much better. Strong-arming a carrier into not hobbling the phone was a plus. However, smart phone usage is dominated by lots of interactions with the UI. TVs, on the other hand, just show a picture or occasionally change inputs, or do things already possible with an AppleTV. The biggest crap UI is the cable box, but the cable providers are basically at war with Apple.

The other area of attack is the complicated rats nest of connections between receiver, TV, and components. So maybe some slick all-in-one could help there, perhaps all inputs going into the TV and integrated speakers, but that's hardly revolutionary.

So without some implausible content deal or major acquisition, I just can't see it. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, as I have no love for the cable companies and would prefer to watch everything on demand with a-la-cart pricing and no commercials.

 

[2499723]

Does this cast doubts on whether or not the AppleTV 3 will be released? I was hoping for one more iteration that offered 1080p and an A5 processor that I could plug into my current TV. Otherwise, I'll just fork out the cash for an AppleTV2 if another set-top box from Apple is not in our future...

 

[divinox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

When the first rumors of an iPhone started, I was excited because the existing phones had terrible UIs and I knew Apple could do much better. Strong-arming a carrier into not hobbling the phone was a plus. However, smart phone usage is dominated by lots of interactions with the UI. TVs, on the other hand, just show a picture or occasionally change inputs, or do things already possible with an AppleTV. The biggest crap UI is the cable box, but the cable providers are basically at war with Apple.

The other area of attack is the complicated rats nest of connections between receiver, TV, and components. So maybe some slick all-in-one could help there, perhaps all inputs going into the TV and integrated speakers, but that's hardly revolutionary.

So without some implausible content deal or major acquisition, I just can't see it. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, as I have no love for the cable companies and would prefer to watch everything on demand with a-la-cart pricing and no commercials.

pretty much what we've got here in sweden right now. lots of ad-based free stuff too. one of the networks just released a 9.99 euro video-service too. not sure bout the quality of that one though.

(4.99 for tv, 9.99 for tv+movies, 19.99 for tv+movies+sports).

 

[GLS]

With Apple (and Tim Cook's) love for streamlining operations, supply chains and manufacturing....I just don't see adding additional SKU's to their catalog that do not intertwine with their current offerings.

Plus, a TV is generally not considered an impluse buy. Nearly everything that Apple produces today (with exception of Mac Pro) could be considered that. And while there is a certain percentage of the population that will trade in TV sets every year or two.....there are far more folks that get a new iPhone, iPod, iPad, or Macbook every year.....

 

[Bigdaddyguido]

Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

The only real thing they could gain by being inside the TV is direct channel access (i.e. PVR functionality). They could also do this via an external box, but it bloats the size of the box and adds cost. It is also, as SJ mentioned, extremely balkanised, with different regional standards and connectors and then there's the whole PayTV thing. Yuck, as they say.

Now, what's the solution to this whole TV standards nonsense? Doing it over the internet, of course - IPTV! Microsoft has been trying (unsuccessfully) to push in that direction for decades.

Now, of course, the situation is made murkier by the iPad. Many cable operators, paytv providers and broadcasters are making their content available over the internet via apps and websites. The great thing is that this is happening all over the world, driven by consumer demand. That means that much of that obscure television data is available in iOS-compatible streaming formats.

That is a powerful advantage that Microsoft's IPTV efforts didn't have. If Apple opened up the AppleTV to 3rd party apps, you would think any of these iOS apps could be ported if Apple could provide both the providers and consumers with a clear incentive to buy in to Apple's box. Apple could also choose to try and push an iTunes-store style revamp of the TV industry, and try to break the huge packages and endless subscriptions with more of a pay-as-you-go style subscription for individual channels or even series. Imagine building your own TV subscription based on only the channels or series that interested you, spanning across providers and (in my ideal world) even countries.

Apple has a lot of good options for TV. They have said they have no love for the complexity involved in shipping televisions that can work across different providers and different countries, and streaming this data is the obvious solution. The real challenge is getting all of the rights issues in place to actually offer this kind of fairytale service.

Then again, Apple has overturned industries before, like with the iPod and the iPhone. It stands to reason that if they want to take the TV industry, they're going to have an uphill climb in the legal department as much as in engineering. They may be looking to how the sheer consumer demand of the iPhone bent the will of the carriers once they found a launch partner (and they did apparently get turned down by some carriers at first) as a model.

That's the kind of change that you can't do with a box, but you might be able to with a whole TV set due to how much easier it is to drive that demand.

I don't see your logic.

Phones are different. People always bought phones every two years or so. Sure, no one paid $700 for a phone before (or since), but the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today without the subsidies that bring it down to a more reasonable price. The iPad is downright cheaper than an iPhone, which is why it's able to sell so many units.

Both the phone and the iPad are clearly things most people will upgrade every couple of years. TVs are a pain to buy. They're huge, fragile, and no fun to put in your car. There's no market for having people buy a new tv every two years. So how can they keep releasing ground breaking software if they can't regularly update the hardware?

The way to break through ridiculous contracts is to have such a huge user base that ignoring said populous would destroy your business. That's what happened with the iPod and the iPhone. With the iPod, the original iTunes store was hardly perfect for consumers, littered with DRM restrictions and hampered by lower quality. But the iPod was fantastic hardware, played ripped music, and gave consumers the option to listen to music in ways they couldn't before. Once the iPod was the music market, and the iTunes store was the definitive place to buy digital music, that's when apple was able to make noise with the labels.

Same for the iPhone. First they were only able to negotiate with a few telcos, such as AT&T, whose back was against the wall and was desperate to beat out Verizon's mindshare. Verizon wanted no part in visual voicemail, or an app store only run by apple with no room for Verizon to add their own store or pointless crapware. Only once millions of phones were being bought, and Verizon was losing massive amounts of customers to AT&T purely for the iPhone, that's when Verizon agreed to all of apples demands.

Same thing with the iPad and news publications. The iPad is selling like nothing before it, and we're all still waiting for newsstand to become the future of digital newspapers/magazines. Sure, we'll pay for great editorial content, but that reality is based on their being enough iPads to convince the magazines/newspapers that this is where their future lies.

So to recap, apple would have to sell millions of TVs first, then use that as a bargaining chip to blast away the archaic world that TV service is cramming down our throats. So whatever made the TV awesome would have to be in place before the awesome personalized Channel subscription or other contract awesomeness could be put in place. The obvious way to do that is an app store for games and such. But who buys a tv for games? You buy a set top box or console. AirPlay is apples ace in the hole, and a whole tv wouldn't improve that. See my previous posts about how it's easier to revolutionize software with a small box than a huge tv. Once all this has happened, then I can see a market for an actual TV. This is still a few years away though. I just don't see a tv being useful in 2012 for these purposes.

 

[marksman]

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Progression:


1) Rumors
2) Everyone says Apple will be a failure
3) Apple releases product
4) Millions upon millions sell
5) Google starts making Android TVs
6) Everyone says Apple didn't innovate, that TVs already existed
7) Apple collects profits
8) Macrumors gets inundated by Android TV users who feel the need to bash Apple TV for no apparent reason
9) We get threads about the fact that if Apple hadn't done it, it would have happened anyway, because the technology was progressing towards it, and what Apple did was not innovative, but rather "obvious" and "trivial"

Happens all the time....ipod, iphone, ipad

Haha. This is the most likely scenario for sure.

 

[ogian]

Apple Television

I see a lot of good posts and prognostications of what the Apple Television is going to be, if Apple finally decides to produce one.

Let me share my wish list. If Apple builds this, I would surely buy several of these over time, as I have purchased its iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, Time Capsule, and Apple TV since I became a convert to Apple’s ecosystem 2 years ago.

I struggle with keeping track and maintaining all the electronic devices in my house that I use for computing and entertainment. I have multiple large LCD/OLED HDTVs scattered across different rooms in my house and have different components attached to them if I could, such as TV set top box, DVR, DVD, sound system, wireless/wired network, desktop PCs, printers, telephone, and other electronic devices.

So I use my TV basically for viewing live, recorded, or pre-programmed TV shows and my computer for personal computing. I use the TV and computer to record and view video/movies/programs, store and listen to music, and get information about any subject, such as weather and news. I use the device that is best at delivering what I need.

Now if Apple builds an intelligent television that consists of large LCD/OLED display (32” to 70” in size), have hooks to and be the visual interface to my music, video, and movie collection, allow me to define the type of programs I would like to record for later viewing/listening from cable, broadcast, and the Internet networks, allow me to access the Internet with support of a portable keyboard, allow sharing of media gathered by other portable devices, and integrate well with similar Apple television, my sound system, and existing LAN/wireless-connected devices and sell for $2500 for a 47” screen, I would be lining up to buy it.

With this device in place, I would use it as my primary entertainment/computing interface.

If I want to get news, it would deliver them from any source and any media. If I want to watch a movie, it can guide me towards a selection and deliver it from wherever source it can access.

If I want to listen to music, I can compose or select a playlist, beam the signal to selected speakers, and turn off the display. I can listen to local or Internet radio and guide me through an easy to follow selection process. If I like a song, with one click I should be able to purchase it. It will allow me to view and read/sing along to the lyrics.

It will alert me of occurrence of tweets, blogs, emails, messages, etc. that I pre-programmed to follow. I can respond by using the portable keyboard to type text easily.

When I receive a phone call, the caller’s ID will display on the TV and allows me to take or reject the call through the remote control, keyboard, or voice command.

It will have a built-in camera and speakerphone so I can do video and voice conference calls.

All media and activities will be recorded in a central database that can be accessed from any network-connected device.

And I should be able to control the TV with my notebook, iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch.

Apple has most of the technological underpinnings to make this happen: iTunes, iCloud, iOs, OS Lion, Mac Mini, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, Airplay, Apple Wireless Keyboard, Facetime, and the like. What remains to be done is to provide the integration of these individual products into an elegant and seamless large screen interface – the Apple Television!

If Apple builds this, they will come. And they will be locked in to Apple’s ecosystem for good.

 

[Popeye206]

If they build a TV it will be interesting to see what they do different.

Oh... and it will be hard not wanting to get one! LOL! I'm sure it would be very sexy... iOS driven and integrated with all the other toys. But what would be different? That is the question.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Progression:


1) Rumors
2) Everyone says Apple will be a failure
3) Apple releases product
4) Millions upon millions sell
5) Google starts making Android TVs
6) Everyone says Apple didn't innovate, that TVs already existed
7) Apple collects profits
8) Macrumors gets inundated by Android TV users who feel the need to bash Apple TV for no apparent reason
9) We get threads about the fact that if Apple hadn't done it, it would have happened anyway, because the technology was progressing towards it, and what Apple did was not innovative, but rather "obvious" and "trivial"

Happens all the time....ipod, iphone, ipad

You forgot #3.1 where all the people who said the product was pointless when it was just rumor and then scoffed at the name when it was announced fight over 1st position in line on launch day or b1tch when the first batch sells out before they can get one.

 

[MisterMe]

I am one of those who was convinced that there will be no new Apple television set. Unfortunately, I did not have enough data to form an educated opinion. As I understand things now, Apple has no choice. The world has changed and Apple has to change with it. This means that Apple will release at least three families of TV sets and possibly more.

They will be models of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. More than 130 US TV stations are currently broadcasting regular programming for mobile devices. In many other countries, the percentage of broadcasters is higher. Their programming does not go through the cellular networks; it goes directly over the air.

You will see mobile devices running Android, Windows Mobile, and other mobile operating systems receiving this programming. If Apple intends to stay on top [and it does], then Apple will add the ability to receive mobile digital television to its devices.

The debate about Apple's intent to get into the TV business has centered around the idea of the company's returning to the living room. The large flat screen is a commodity business. However, the mobile market has room for Apple innovation. For example, many mobile devices require an external dongle to receive mobile broadcasts. It is inconceivable for an iPhone to require such an ugly accessory.

If Apple brings television to its iOS devices, then it is no longer out-of-the-question for Apple to bring television to MacOS X or to extend iOS to larger devices like conventional TV sets. Afterall, many TV sets run Linux today.

That said, all of the challenges for making a profit on the living room remain. I believe that Apple still has a choice whether or not to enter this market. However, Apple does not have a choice about the mobile digital television market. It will enter this market.

 

[Nickraphael]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Actually apple could make it work, they could push for larger cinema displays with super high resolutions (say 4k res), a 46" would double as a tv and as a large iMac that would enable people to multi task. You could watch regular tv in one corner while reading your email. Don't get me wrong, this can all be done now, much like there were phones before the iPhone, but apple will make it a much smoother experience. I would pay $2k for that...

 

[Nickraphael]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Or probably more lol ssh don't tell apple