Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If it comes lacking inputs...for one, I wouldn't be TOO terribly surprised, and two, it'll probably flounder and die on the market.

You can pretty much assume that if they do indeed release a TV, then the 45" model will probably run somewhere in the $999 ballpark. Expensive, but not prohibitively so. For a TV that's bound to appeal to tech enthusiasts, it'll be an easy price to swallow.

But there's one problem there. It's a TV bound to attract the tech enthusiasts. Most families are used to spending $550 for a cheap, but good enough 45" TV from Wal-Mart. You might have a few people who'll buy one, but most of the sales will probably be from the tech heads.

But wait? What's this?

No jacks? No HDMI? So that means they can't hook up their receiver to it? Can't hook up a Blu-Ray player? Xbox360? The hell?

Oh. Well. They can talk to it. And it plays high def iPhone games. I guess that makes all the sacrifices worth it. I mean the speakers are good enough. Sure would be nice with a subwoofer, though.

Yeah. Right. The tech enthusiast crowd will snub the thing like a sewer dipped roast beef sandwich. And the mom and pop bunch? It'll probably sell a bit on brand recognition, but if YOUR Apple TV ends up being THE Apple TV, it's almost guaranteed DOA.

You really think Apple is after tech enthusiasts? Been living under a rock the past four years?

You ignored many of the points I made, but namely my point about the content providing. No receiver will be necessary to access all of your content. I imagine xBox 360 will *still* probably work with an Airplay dongle... but even if not, people won't really care too much once the 360 starts going out of style.

More people have iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads anyway... and want something that will integrate with these devices. People who own this iDevice will likely utilize the games that are being released for iOS. In the next two years, especially following the iDevice release, games are going to soar in quality as developers flock to it and away from consoles (talking to you, thenerdal).

Trust me, consumers are willing to pay a light small premium for a paradigm-shifting device vs the old bulky TV. iPhone was released originally for $499 & $599 with no subsidy. Steve Ballmer laughed at it. But since 2007 much has changed, and Apple has the clout to take a chance on pricing their products very competitively. The iPad is a prime example of how this strategy worked in their favor.
 
-Tons of new HD games (multiplayer, online, etc) that are designed to work via airplay on the "iDevice" controlled with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Will be a awful blow to consoles.

Why would I buy a big screen TV with no outputs/inputs for my 5.1 theater sound system and blu-ray player only to play games on it while staring at a 3.5" screen the whole time ?

What use the is the honking 50" TV if I can't even look at it to play games ?

iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad as a controller is dead in the water for anything but non-interactive "remote control" type functionality.
 
You really think Apple is after tech enthusiasts? Been living under a rock the past four years?

You ignored many of the points I made, but namely my point about the content providing. No receiver will be necessary to access all of your content. I imagine xBox 360 will *still* probably work with an Airplay dongle... but even if not, people won't really care too much once the 360 starts going out of style.

More people have iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads anyway... and want something that will integrate with these devices. People who own this iDevice will likely utilize the games that are being released for iOS. In the next two years, especially following the iDevice release, games are going to soar in quality as developers flock to it and away from consoles.

Trust me, consumers are willing to pay a light small premium for a paradigm-shifting device vs the old bulky TV. iPhone was released originally for $499 & $599 with no subsidy. Steve Ballmer laughed at it. But since 2007 much has changed, and Apple has the clout to take a chance on pricing their products very competitively. The iPad is a prime example of how this strategy worked in their favor.

Xbox 360 is old, yes. But they're making a new Xbox next year I'm pretty sure since the Wii U comes out this year.

Also, TV's are getting thinner.

----------

Why would I buy a big screen TV with no outputs/inputs for my 5.1 theater sound system and blu-ray player only to play games on it while staring at a 3.5" screen the whole time ?

What use the is the honking 50" TV if I can't even look at it to play games ?

iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad as a controller is dead in the water for anything but non-interactive "remote control" type functionality.

I totally agree with this. You won't be able to feel what you're pressing on an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad making it difficult to play games on the TV.
 
Erm? Yeah mate, because of a recession the share holders will agree to sell the entire business to Apple just so they can use the name :rolleyes:
As I said already, it's not up to Apple or ITV if one can buy the other, it has to be APPROVED FIRST!

Well mate, we were talking about government approval and I don't think they'd block a massive introduction of money into the country if it was consensual.

Like I've already said, it'd be a crazy thing for Apple to do for a name that won't do them any favours, I'm sure they realise that.

I love Corrie as much as you do and don't want to see ITV disappear, I grew up with it as the third channel, but if they wanted to make some cash from their name good on 'em, times have changed since the first AppleTV came out, we don't know if they might feel differently now.
 
A la carte video (TV shows, movies) are already available from multiple vendors - e.g. iTunes, Amazon, Netflix.

Amazon & Netflix streaming apps are built-in to most boxes (e.g. Roku or any internet connected Blu-ray player), if not built-into the HDTV itself.

What would a la carte channels offer over the above, commercial-free options?
 
You really think Apple is after tech enthusiasts? Been living under a rock the past four years?

No. But it's the only market I really see the thing appealing to. But...

You ignored many of the points I made, but namely my point about the content providing. No receiver will be necessary to access all of your content. I imagine xBox 360 will *still* probably work with an Airplay dongle... but even if not, people won't really care too much once the 360 starts going out of style.

First. I'm talking about a receiver as in a Dolby Digital AV receiver. As in the thing you hook up speakers to, so you can get the full experience out of your home theatre setup. If it doesn't have any jacks to hook a receiver or a Blu-Ray player up to, then what's the point of having a premium top of the line, best of class TV? Content provided over the internet is middling as far as quality is concerned. A real enthusiast will want the best of the best to take advantage of their newly acquired expensive hardware. Without ports, it'll be a device that doesn't live up to it's own full potential.

But what about the low end folks who only care so much about image quality and sound fidelity? For those people, it's too expensive. It might have a slick UI, but a UI on a TV is ultimately just an interruption to the main even, which is watching TV. It isn't as important here as it is on the other iDevices, which you use actively, rather than passively.

Being able to talk to your TV will be a cool feature, but will it be enough to cause people to flock to it much like the iPhone and iPad? Probably not. Because shouting commands at your TV is pretty awkward when it comes right down to it. It'll be a nice initial draw feature, but probably fall by the wayside once people get used to whatever kind of remote the TV comes with (which I would guess will be an iPod-like device, and I'll explain why if you ask).

The Xbox360, or consoles in general, falling out of favor is about your only hope to justify the TVs lack of ports. And even if they do, it's still not enough of a justification.

Basically, your vision of the AppleTV is a boutique television aimed at no one in particular.

Trust me, consumers are willing to pay a light small premium for a paradigm-shifting device vs the old bulky TV. iPhone was released originally for $499 & $599 with no subsidy. Steve Ballmer laughed at it. But since 2007 much has changed, and Apple has the clout to take a chance on pricing their products very competitively. The iPad is a prime example of how this strategy worked in their favor.

First of all...bulky TV? HA!. And I bet the thing has HDMI ports, too. Secondly, a paradigm shift in the television market will be more about getting content, rather than the device itself. This is something Apple CAN provide, and provide well. But is a closed environment television the way to do it? Sacrificing the ability to create a personalized home entertainment system to force people into their ecosystem probably isn't the way to go about it.

Also holy crap. LG made a 4000 horizontal line TV set.
 
Last edited:
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").

:confused: :confused: :confused: If you are well aware, why did you repeat the same mistake. HD (High Definition) only refers to resolution, TRUE or not. True HD commonly refers to 1080p. It's not false information to claim that 720p or 1080i or 1080p is HD regardless of the bitrate.
 
I just keep thinking, "How heavy will a 50" HDTV be with a piece of glass that big on it?"

Yeah, the first person at the line in front of apple store on launch day must be muscular enough to raise it high for media to take photos.
 
They'll just buyout Hulu and integrate it into iTunes and there we go... content...

Hulu is a joint venture between Fox, NBC, and Disney(ABC) so I don't see why they would sell their online distribution portal to Apple, who if doing what people are speculating on (direct internet TV through Apple), would be killing their local affiliates.
 
:confused: :confused: :confused: If you are well aware, why did you repeat the same mistake. HD (High Definition) only refers to resolution, TRUE or not. True HD commonly refers to 1080p. It's not false information to claim that 720p or 1080i or 1080p is HD regardless of the bitrate.

I explained why I repeated it. And we both know you have a history with me being contrary for contrary sake. You know what I meant and how it was presented. You just HAVE to be right. So in the interest of not annoying everyone else on this thread who CLEARLY understood my emphasis - I'm not going to engage in a back and forth with you. Happy New Year...
 
A la carte video (TV shows, movies) are already available from multiple vendors - e.g. iTunes, Amazon, Netflix.

Amazon & Netflix streaming apps are built-in to most boxes (e.g. Roku or any internet connected Blu-ray player), if not built-into the HDTV itself.

What would a la carte channels offer over the above, commercial-free options?

Maybe a lower subscription cost? Buying three different shows on a single channel might be close to the cost to just subscribe to that channel.

One problem with a la carte channels is the fact that most networks aren't a fan of it. They want to be able to charge the company for the number of subscribers for multiple channels to increase profits as far as I know. Why don't you think the current TV providers offer that already. People have been asking for that for a long time, myself included.
 
:confused: :confused: :confused: If you are well aware, why did you repeat the same mistake. HD (High Definition) only refers to resolution, TRUE or not. True HD commonly refers to 1080p. It's not false information to claim that 720p or 1080i or 1080p is HD regardless of the bitrate.

It's actually the term Full HD that's commonly interchanged with 1090p. TrueHD is the audio codec
 
It's actually the term Full HD that's commonly interchanged with 1090p. TrueHD is the audio codec

Yep. That is the most common usage. However, some companies promote 1080p as "True HD" (with a space). My point was that the term does not refer in any way to a minimum bitrate for HD video.
 
If I can't plug the PS3 into it, and it's not as big as what I already have, it's a non-starter.
 
People who own this iDevice will likely utilize the games that are being released for iOS. In the next two years, especially following the iDevice release, games are going to soar in quality as developers flock to it and away from consoles.

Time will tell. The opportunity is there, certainly.

But right now - I watch my kids, who have access to everything - and what they play with the least are iOS games. PS3, Wii, Wii Console (ie, retreads of prev gen games), Mugen, Flash franchise mashups, LBP2 user levels, Roblox - basically anything and everything but iOS.

Now, if Apple releases an ATV3 that can run something like BF3 at 1080p60, and allows physical controllers, then that might change.

But right now, today, iOS gaming is quite sucky, despite the incredible number of titles.
 
Yep. That is the most common usage. However, some companies promote 1080p as "True HD" (with a space). My point was that the term does not refer in any way to a minimum bitrate for HD video.

No, but blu-ray marketing in the past used "full hd 1080p" a lot. So I think a fair number of people associate full HD with BD quality video.
 
Hopefully with Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set. After image quality, that is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?

What is it with you (Obsession) that you always have to post the same regarding AppleTv PIP and Twin Tuners?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1298856/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1293562/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1288923/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1288112/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1287087/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1284694/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1280856/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1220019/

.....And probably the list goes on, too lazy to look for more of the same.
 
My 47" 5+ year old display is just that. It has no TV tuner in it. The only people that need TV tuners anymore are those that can still get enough over the air channels to keep them happy or that want a cable ready analog display. Most cable companies require their customers to use a company supplied digital cable box. Also with things like eyeTV, Hulu & other TV show providers we do not need a TV tuner. I actually like my 47" display as it has no TV parts in it to pay for or to wear out. It serves 2 purposes. The main one is to show our customers where we are with their work. The 2nd use is the keep the members of the family that is not helping with our work to have something to entertain them. I also have a 28" display that does either of the rolls. Also when one has many windows opened, 5+ displays can really help one see what is going on.

Bigger is usually better if the resolution is kept high enough. I'd take a 70 + 80" Apple display with a 3840 X 2400 resolution. This allow me to show my customers more while still doing some low resolution 1920 X 1080 that people want to call HD. Also a TV tuner is not needed. They just take up space & produce more heat.

Typical narrow minded thinking.

Why You think this AppleTv is only for the American market.
In Europe for instance there are many Tv's with build in CI+ PCMCIA slots and those people don't need an extra Set top box since the tuner is build in.
Just drop in a decoder plus Card and it just works
An added value is that now only one remote is needed.
Another added value is that all controls are on the TV, whether it is a guide, recording(On more and more sets) and even freeze the picture.
You might be able to do so with a set top box but it is more cumbersome.

Tuner take up space and produce more heat, what a boatload full of ...
It takes very little space and the heat is negligible compared to the rest of the innards of the LCD
 
At present, I have 3 boxes (ATV2, Bluray player & Cable box) underneath my TV, a Surround sound system feeding off it AND a computer (mac mini) albeit out of the way streaming things through the ATV2. Some people also have a Wii or another gaming platform attached to their TV. To the point that HDMI ports is a feature TVs are judged on.

As you can imagine, that's a lot of wires and mess. Also, even though a lot of the films & TV series we own are stored on said computer, we also own a lot of physical media which of course will be strewn around the living room particularly when the kids start messing around!

We also need the cable box because it provides 1 terra of storage for recording and live pausing TV so if Apple can simplify all that and make my set-up neater and more elegant then I will consider it.

BUT...I am probably not going to be an early adopter because unlike an iPad and an iPhone, the TV is NEVER a personal thing for most families and will require to change the viewing habits and routines of multiple members of families...it'll take time. But have no doubt Apple can provide that solution
 
Last edited:
So no, the delivery channels don't quite exist for the mass market to justify making a TV higher than 1920x1080 just yet.

Depends where you are.
There are already countries in the world with connections up to 100Gbs.
In My small town it would be possible to do just that, streaming BR over fiber but very few people want.
Not because of price or quality, no its the slow Motorola STB that comes with it, hopping from one to
the other channel takes 3 seconds, horrible.
In a former post above I also said people prefer not to have a STB but CI+ plus tuner build in.
And, AFAIK the HD channels are 1080i now but they could provide 1080p if the providers want to.
 
So Apple make the jump from computers to televisions.

How long before all household products are available from the Home iCatalogue?

Who is first for the iKettle or iVacuum both of which can be controlled from your iPhone7

Hmmmm?...where will it end?
 
So Apple make the jump from computers to televisions.

How long before all household products are available from the Home iCatalogue?

Who is first for the iKettle or iVacuum both of which can be controlled from your iPhone7

Hmmmm?...where will it end?

An iVacuum would not fit the usual Apple-ecosystem approach (Device + Content). Unless Apple launches iDust as well on the Apple DustStore.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.