Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES

[ctdonath]

We aren't minutes away. Right now - you can't get true HD content via streaming. Not TRUE HD.

Only because people expect and insist on [almost] no buffering. "TRUE HD" is just a matter of the provider changing one value in the video header (bitrate to the equivalent of "lossless") and the customer putting up with a long initial buffering period (and that is a matter of ISP delivery rate, not hardware at either end nor content).

 

[Yumunum]

I can imagine it looking a lot like a large Thunderbolt Display. Pure black bezel with largely rounded edges. Hey, it's Apple we're talking about here. If they make a TV, it's not going to look generic. (well, not as generic as most)

 

[ctdonath]

You mean if they really want to get sued for trademark theft.

We're trying to spell it out for you:

1. Apple checks ITV's market cap price, sees it's about $3B.
2. Apple checks contents of wallet, sees $80B cash there.
3. Apple submits a "buy" order for ITV at $3B.
4. Apple owns the ITV name outright.
5. Apple gives ITV a new name, say BeenSchooled.
6. Apple submits a "sell" order for BeenSchooled.
7. Apple recoups most of, if not more than, $3B.
8. Apple introduces the iTV.

----------

I can imagine it looking a lot like a large Thunderbolt Display. Pure black bezel with largely rounded edges.

Yup, what I was thinking: right in line with the introduction of Thunderbolt. What's the max resolution supported?

 

[adztaylor]

We're trying to spell it out for you:

1. Apple checks ITV's market cap price, sees it's about $3B.
2. Apple checks contents of wallet, sees $80B cash there.
3. Apple submits a "buy" order for ITV at $3B.
4. Apple owns the ITV name outright.
5. Apple gives ITV a new name, say BeenSchooled.
6. Apple submits a "sell" order for BeenSchooled.
7. Apple recoups most of, if not more than, $3B.
8. Apple introduces the iTV.

Wow, the ignorance is spreading, it looks like YOU are the one who needs it spelling out. Check my post on the previous page:

Again...you have absolutely no idea whatsoever. It's more than just mere money. You have cared to look up the market cap of ITV but have neglected to research that it is run by several regional companies (not all of them will sell) which have massive legal implications if Apple were to make a bid for a public service network.

This Apple fanboy ignorance where you think they can throw its cash reserve at something just because the market cap is less than what Apple have in the bank is complete foolishness. Read more post less. I'm just glad someone like you isn't in charge of Apple.

 

[northy124]

iTV entire market cap is a small fraction of Apple's cash. Apple could buy ITV PLC the whole company, fire a few overpaid execs, and sell off the assets, maybe at a profit after cutting overhead... Oh, but keep the name.

The British government would not allow that to happen.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I think you missed the point of our discussion!

You listed three in your opinion non successful Apple products and then suggest that Apple (and its fanboys) should not be consumed by thinking everything they do (or buy) is a home run.

I listed Apple's many home runs (some actually game changers) and mentioned especially that they do not care about fanboys, meaning they develop markets and products for those markets regardless of what the consumer wants or competitors say.

Will an Apple TV be received well? No idea, since nobody knows what is actually coming.

For my money make the Apple TV better, give me a projector, so I can decide which size my picture should be and if in the process they can give us a la carte programming with time shifting, great!

Don't need Siri remote (Siri has ways to go before it works well)

On a side note: The way many younger audiences watch TV these days is not with the family all watching the same program.

So, if Apple can find a way to stream 4, 5 or however many different programs at the same time with their device a family could all sit together in their living rooms etc. , all with ipads watching whatever they want and still be together.

Strange thought though when I see kids texting etc. during dinner or at restaurants even when being with friends and family.

 

[BaldiMac]

Bolded for emphasis of your own words. We aren't minutes away. Right now - you can't get true HD content via streaming. Not TRUE HD. Sure you can get the resolution - but the compression is not even close to blu-ray, etc.

And now you want to increase the resolution and transmit that. "Minutes" away. Not at all.

Not for streaming, sir. For local playback, sure. But that's not really Apple's "model" now is it.

HD only refers to resolution, not bitrate. Adding "TRUE" doesn't change that. Just a pet peeve.

 

[soup4you2]

If this thing only plans to support Wifi forget about streaming your nice collection of 1080p content sitting on your fileserver.. I would much rather see a built in Ethernet over Coax MoCA adapter than wireless.

 

[fpnc]

I think that both the ATV1 and ATV2 are great devices and I hope Apple continues with that product line (I own both and use them each and every day).

However, for the last several years I have been a complete naysayer on all of the rumors about the possibility of a display-including Apple TV (e.g. 50" Apple TV, and the others). Then I had a realization, it may be that Apple is working on such a device not because they think it will be a quick success but rather because they believe that they HAVE to move in that direction to prepare for the day when the majority of consumers will use a TV-like device for most of their home computing needs.

Whether that shift happens in ten years, or fifteen or twenty years from now I don't really know but I suspect the day will come when the traditional "home" computer is pretty much a thing of the past (replaced by something closer to a TV and with portable devices like the iPhone and iPad).

There is still the multi-user issue (i.e. how can a family share their one-and-only big-screen TV as their only computing device) but I expect that will be solved with the iPad and iPhone-like devices and the fact that practically every room will have its own "TV" (or whatever it will be called, a computer "wall" for the main device and smaller units for the other rooms).

Thus, Apple may just be wanting to get into this market because it would be better to begin now (with something) rather than to wait until the market is fully defined by someone else.

In any case, I don't expect that this rumored Apple TV will be a big success within the next several years, but check back in the year 2020 and we'll see again.

 

[Renzatic]

Internet content delivery is limited only by bandwidth, not resolution. The pieces are in place, the codecs can handle the image dimensions, content is already being produced at excessive resolutions, delivery channels exist, the only thing missing is trustworthy display hardware at a viable price and a public willing to buy in.

It's not quite that simple. Resolution is only one part of the picture equation. When it comes to delivering content over the internet, the provider has to make some sacrifice to picture quality to fit it down the pipe to get it to you. If it were as simple as you make it out to be, we'd be streaming 2+ hour Blu-Ray quality movies off of iTunes as we speak.

But we're not. And if we can't stream Blu-Ray quality movies via iTunes now, what makes you think we'll be able to stream even higher resolution media next year? To put it in perspective for you, streaming 480i DVD quality media to over the internet requires a connection somewhere in the neighborhood of 6Mbps. That's a 640x480 freaking interlaced DVD. You know. Where every other horizontal row of pixels is skipped. Oldschool stuff. We're only now getting to the point where that quality of a connection is widespread (in America at least).

Broadcast HD eats up roughly (I believe) 16-20Mbps of bandwidth to stream through to your house. Getting that over the internet isn't out of the ballpark for most people living in metro areas and suburbs. But what about Blu-ray? As in uncompressed, what you see when you pop in the disc quality? Well, lets do some simple street math here to find out (Someone correct me if I"m wrong. Math ain't my....gooder).

Lets assume most Blu-Ray movies are about 30GB, and last about 2 hours. To stream that live without any buffering period would mean that, yup, you have to download 30GB in 2 hours. That's about roughly 35Mbps right there. That's high end, expensive cable connections, or entry level fiber. Not very many people have access to those speeds. And that's at 1920x1080. 2560x1440 will be even more costly to download uncompressed. And what about people with download caps? Well, I guess Canada is screwed. They'll just about eat up their monthly allowance on one movie alone. Sorry, Frosty Brothers and Sisters of the North! I think you gotta sit this one out.

So here you all are, wanting to spend the cash on a TV that is capable of displaying an ultrasharp picture at higher than HD resolutions, but you don't have any way to get the content to the screen to justify it. Well, other than buying a Blu-Ray player. But disc based media is dead and all that.

So no, the delivery channels don't quite exist for the mass market to justify making a TV higher than 1920x1080 just yet.

 

[The Captain]

You listed three in your opinion non successful Apple products and then suggest that Apple (and its fanboys) should not be consumed by thinking everything they do (or buy) is a home run.

I listed Apple's many home runs (some actually game changers) and mentioned especially that they do not care about fanboys, meaning they develop markets and products for those markets regardless of what the consumer wants or competitors say.

Will an Apple TV be received well? No idea, since nobody knows what is actually coming.

For my money make the Apple TV better, give me a projector, so I can decide which size my picture should be and if in the process they can give us a la carte programming with time shifting, great!

Don't need Siri remote (Siri has ways to go before it works well)

On a side note: The way many younger audiences watch TV these days is not with the family all watching the same program.

So, if Apple can find a way to stream 4, 5 or however many different programs at the same time with their device a family could all sit together in their living rooms etc. , all with ipads watching whatever they want and still be together.

Strange thought though when I see kids texting etc. during dinner or at restaurants even when being with friends and family.

Yep, you still did not follow our discussion, since apparently you came in on the post where I listed Apple failures which was in reply to the other chap listing Apple successes as the only rebuttal to my even earlier post listing the REASONS I don't think an Apple TV will not be a hit. So yea, I listed the failures but only to show the logical fallacy the other fellow was using.

But my reasons for why it won't work is what he had ignored.

But look, I agree with the things you said about the streaming stuff within the home, I just do not see Apple being a big player getting that stuff to your home over the cable providers.

 

[Xtremehkr]

But a major roadblock for Apple along the way has been securing content needed to make an iTV succeed. The problems Apple is having securing content deals were described in an interview with a person who worked in the Apple TV group and verified by two television industry sources. All declined to be identified because of the confidential nature of the talks.

They say Apple has been unable to cut deals that would let it offer first-tier TV network programs for an à la carte iTunes TV service. That's seen as a key element to launching a revolutionary iTV.

It's the content providers that Apple should just buy out. iTV is a great name, perfectly representative of what the TV would be, but it's not going to succeed without top tier content.

Cable companies are increasing rates at an average of 5% per year, sometimes more.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/06/news/companies/cable_bill_cost_increase/

 

[ericinboston]

Just like the first rumors and reports on the iPad...
It's just going to be a 50" iPhone

Not to go off topic (since you did start this post)...but the iPad is very much a large iPod Touch/iPhone. Sure, each device/version has a VERY FEW key differences such as the ability/inability to make phonecalls, take videos/pics, or use GPS. Other than that, the devices are 90% the same in features and just physically different sizes. I am in no way saying that any of the 3 product families suck...they are just almost all identical.

Anyone that has used an iPhone 3GS or iPod Touch before the iPad 1.0 unveiling will agree with my above statement. Folks that have never experienced any iOS typically love it (regardless of the device) within a few hours of use.

As far as what Apple has in store for some kind of new tv experience, we'll all just have to wait and see. Unless Apple somehow completely cuts my cable tv bill by 75%-100%, I really see no reason to buy some kind of Apple-branded tv with a "new way of watching tv" pitch. The 50" tv is going to cost at LEAST $1000 then I will certainly need to somehow pay Apple for whatever I watch (let's say at least $10/month). My cable tv bill is about $70/month for more channels than I can watch (even though I find tv is full of junk shows 99% of the time). To get my $1000 investment back (and what do I do about the beautiful tv I already own?), there will need to be super significant savings elsewhere and the ability to recoup these savings within 12-18 months...not 5 years down the road.

 

[fpnc]

Here is something of an interesting announcement, the so-called "Roku Streaming Stick" a small, thumb-drive-sized, WiFi-based device that you plug into the back of a TV to add internet-based services.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/04/roku-unveils-streaming-stick-squeezes-box-into-mhl-dongle/

This device apparently makes any TV with a MHL-compatible port (HDMI-like) into a "smart" TV (it can even be controlled using the TV's own remote).

 

[rjohnstone]

Google etc will announce theirs next month so that they can be first and say that there's no way they are a knock off because they announced theirs first. Mind you it won't be released until "later this year"

And then when it is released, it will look nothing like the stuff in their original announcement but very 'inspired by' the Apple TV.

One last time for the beginners...
Google and Sony teamed up to make their all-in-one Google TV nearly two years ago.
Here's the 46" version. Only $899.00 at Best Buy

Cool looking TV and a nice interface, but the remote is insane.

 

[Renzatic]

That's a remote? I thought it was a label maker or something. I'm kinda disappointed now.

 

[kromekat]

Meanwhile, the professionals still await news of an updated desktop Mac... Really, will we have to see the release of Apple washing machines, toasters and hoovers before we get a new MacPro/Equivalent?? :]

 

[rjohnstone]

That's a remote? I thought it was a label maker or something. I'm kinda disappointed now.

It's huge!
I was playing around with one at Best Buy last year when I was TV shopping.
The TV was decent, great picture and even the Google TV interface was pretty slick, but the damn remote was a monster.
It does EVERYTHING.

That being said, ever try and enter user info with a standard remote?
I see the advantages, but they need to put that thing on a serious diet.

 

[uknowimright]

Meanwhile, the professionals still await news of an updated desktop Mac... Really, will we have to see the release of Apple washing machines, toasters and hoovers before we get a new MacPro/Equivalent?? :]

well they did drop Computer from their name, lol

 

[Renzatic]

It's huge!
I was playing around with one at Best Buy last year when I was TV shopping.
The TV was decent, great picture and even the Google TV interface was pretty slick, but the damn remote was a monster.
It does EVERYTHING.

Cept make labels. Which is why I'm disappointed.

 

[MisterMe]

My 47" 5+ year old display is just that. It has no TV tuner in it. ...

The world has changed since your 5+ year-old display was manufactured. Virtually all HDTV-capable displays sold in the USA are required by Federal law to include an integrated ATSC digital over-the-air tuner.

... Broadcast TV is over. If a tuner was to be supported it would be through an external USB connection, but again, I would assume no tuner. The world of Broadcast and Cable TV, Analog and Digital, is so convoluted I'm willing to state here and now that there will never be an Apple TV with a tuner. ....

Sometimes it helps to read the paper. Contrary to your assertion, the facts are exactly opposite. Owing to the state of the economy, the expense of cable and satellite TV subscriptions, and the programming choices afforded the OTA digital multicasting, there is a massive cut-the-cord movement. Households are dropping their cable and satellite providers in favor of broadcast TV received over-the-air. In absolute and relative numbers, the number both cable subscribers and satellite subscribers in declining.

One other thing--as of this writing, no one has correctly explained the business model of the NBC TV show 30 Rock.

Here goes:

1. In the case of 30 Rock, NBCUniversal owns the show. Therefore, NBCUniversal hired the producer who, in turn, hired the cast and crew.
2. NBC distributes the show to its local affiliates. Each local affiliate, if it chooses to do so, broadcasts 30 Rock over-the-air to viewers in its coverage area.
3. Among those receiving the show are the local cable TV franchises. The local cable franchise retransmits the show to its subscribers.
4. Until recently, cable providers retransmitted broadcast TV free of change from the local broadcaster. Today there are often retransmission fee agreements. Even today, the cable provider does not pay the network for transmission of OTA broadcasts.
5. 30 Rock is funded primarily by sponsors that pay for the number of eyeballs that see the sponsors' commercials. Today local affiliates pay the network for the programming that it receives. This is a reversal of previous practice when the network paid the local affiliate to carry its shows.

In the case of NBC New York, NBC New York is one of several NBCUniversal owned-and-operated stations and part of a different division than the broadcast network. No broadcast company is legally permitted to own TV broadcast stations that cover more than 35% of the Nation. The other 65% of the Nation is covered by local affiliates owned by other companies.

 

[samcraig]

HD only refers to resolution, not bitrate. Adding "TRUE" doesn't change that. Just a pet peeve.

I'm well aware. Pet peeve away - but unfortunately the general public is being led astray by false information. When companies like Apple, Netflix, Comcast, etc tout their HD services, they fail to explain to the customer that just because the screen size has the right # of pixels doesn't mean it's high QUALITY. So when I say TRUE (in caps) HD - I mean true High Definition. Emphasis on DEFINITION.

I can have something in 1080P look crappier than something on 30 year old VHS.

Many companies that serve video via streaming services want customers to think they are getting the best picture and sound and the truth is - they aren't. Nothing comes close to blu-ray. And that's ok for many people. But that also doesn't change the fact that people are being fed marketing jargon.

Just like 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios which are meaningless.

I know you know all this. Sadly - too many people don't and insist they are getting HD content (and when THEY refer to it - they mean "just like blu-ray").

 

[apolloa]

To the 'intelligent' people on here proclaiming Apple could just 'buy' ITV! You do realise any buyout at the level has to go through the UK competition commission and I think the European courts too in some cases? That alone shows how stupid it is to state Apple will simply buy ITV to use the name iTV! And in some cases the deals have to be approved by Government too if required.

So I can hardly see Apple being allowed to buy out a media service provider just to use it's name on it's own media service device!

So please drop the iTV name.

 

[Mike Oxard]

To the 'intelligent' people on here proclaiming Apple could just 'buy' ITV! You do realise any buyout at the level has to go through the UK competition commission and I think the European courts too in some cases? That alone shows how stupid it is to state Apple will simply buy ITV to use the name iTV! And in some cases the deals have to be approved by Government too if required.

So I can hardly see Apple being allowed to buy out a media service provider just to use it's name on it's own media service device!

So please drop the iTV name.

You really think anyone in Europe is going to turn down 3 Billion Dollars in the middle of a recession? I think it would be negligent of them to do so if both ITV and Apple were happy with the deal.

 

[rotax]

As others have alluded to - if Apple entered the TV market - it would be driven by a software solution not hardware.

TVs, as used by most, are dumb. Meaning - they really are just a monitor with hookups via HDMI to display content.

Apple's foray into this market isn't going to be about hardware (which I am sure will be nice - but not for everyone) - it will be about figuring out how to get users to consume content effortlessly. Whether that's iTunes, iCable or whatever it winds up being.

And they can still do that without producing an actual TV. Although they can offer their solution device agnostic and ALSO produce a TV which has added functionality that's exclusive to Apple.

Could not disagree more. Apple's unique talent is software and hardware integration. If this was just about software or there was no need to produce a TV to enable a capability, Apple would just continue with the current external box. If they are making the leap into the big screen you can bet there is a reason and a new level of integration that makes it a very compelling capability that does not exist. So ask yourself, of all the things that modern LED / Plasma flat TVs do today, what could Apple do to improve upon them in a novel way that would require hardware and software integration and provide a capability that does not exist in stand alone TVs today?

Apple learned a fortunate lesson with the iPhone and iPad about what a popular gaming platform they had created. Everyone knows the home TV is used to play games. Do you think Apple would ignore iOS's gains in the gaming market and produce a TV that would not, in a really great way, support gaming?

I think its going to be a significant improvement in the interface that, while it may include Siri, will compete with Kinect in a novel integrated way. I dont think it will have a traditional remote control that is required to interact with the TV.