Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And, for the record, even 50" is way too small. Aren't Apple fans traditionally considered well off, or at least, not poor? I have a 52" in the living room now and a 120" projection in my theater room. There is no place for some tiny Apple televion, and the 50", while not tiny, would be a downgrade for a lot of normal people, much less Apple people.

Yikes! Not only am I poor, but live in an old house with smallish rooms. 50" is way too big. My exh brought home a projection tv back in the mid-90's, don't remember the exact size, but the best place to watch it was sitting on the stairs - across the hall.

I could probably go a bit bigger than the 32" I have now (though 32" is fine if the quality is high). I use a very small tv in my bedroom on my dresser and that's fine too.

To me 50" is just waayyyy too big and would be way out of my price range.

I would be thrilled to get a system that does the following:
allow me local network tv
allow me to add "cable" channels - the ones *I* want, not a package
not have my internet bill go up (right now it's cheaper for me to get basic cable plus internet than to get internet alone)
go back to one damn remote! ever since the "new and improved" digital cable came out, I now have more cables, 2 remotes, a converter box that is weighs less than the cables and more image problems than I ever had. I don't have HD tv's. PLUS the converter box plugs in which uses electricity. Hate them! Another improvement that did nothing for me but cost me money and aggrevation.
 
Last edited:
If this is a TV, as opposed to a box that plugs into a TV, I'd be very surprised. There's just nothing about Apple building a television set that makes any sense.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

I don't get why Microsoft is listed as one of the companies feeling threatened by this move. They're not in the home electronics/TV market. Is it just that they want Apple to fail? Do they feel this somehow threatens their share in the PC marketplace? I can see how the iPad is a threat to PCs, but who will replace a computer with a TV?


the new x-box software streams TV and they have been trying to get the x-box to replace cable boxes
 
I completely disagree with the assertion that these sets are quality. I would say the Samsung TV I own looks good for a thin black monolith. However, the software on the so-called SmartTV is atrocious. Really, the only good thing about TVs today is that they are very good at putting HDMI on the screen. So in summary, as long as you treat the SmartTV like a monitor you'll love it.

I should say that I was referring to their physical appearance rather than any functionality aspects.

To be honest, all I ever really want in a TV is that it makes HDMI input sources look good. I can't honestly say that I give much of a crap about anything else, the PS3, the occasional Blu-Ray in that, and Sky HD.

The TV hardware for Apple is just another route for them to hawk you programmes/films from the iTunes store and bypass any middle men or computer.

Fair enough maybe, and they'll no doubt do it well, but there are numerous cheaper alternatives.
 
Apple is actually going to split the company into two companies. One company will retain the name "Apple", be lead by Tim Cook and will produce a new 50-inch Apple iTV along with the iPhone, iPad, Macs, etc....

Reed Hastings will be brought on board from Netflix to run the other company which will continue to produce the set-top box currently known as the "Apple TV". The new company will be known as "Appster" with the device being renamed as the "Appster TV".

Further, you will no longer be able to manage all your iTunes rentals with a single account. Your existing iTunes account will work the new Apple iTV, but you will need to create a new account at Appster's website for their new service known as AppsterTunes. You can rent movies from either service, but they cannot be interchanged between the devices. Further, your Netflix account will only work on the Appster TV.

No wait.... that can't be right. Somebody tried that already and it failed.
 
All depends on the price how popular it will be...yes there will be those who just will not buy it because it is Apple, then there will be those willing to sell their soles to the Devil himself in order to own one.....finally where I fit it, if the price is decent to what it offers, I may get one, but I can see a 42", 46" or 50" Apple TV going for way over $1,000.00 in which case count me out.
Well that is VERY obvious. Look at the leading TVs in the 42"-50" currently, they're all selling for WAY over $1000, so there is no way apple would undercut them by a massive amount, if at all.
 
u know the idea will be great but those greedy studios will ruin it as usual with overpriced 2,99 € for an episode stream which u cant even keep (why u should pay for something you can watch live for free is beyond me) or regional limitations


Well that is VERY obvious. Look at the leading TVs in the 42"-50" currently, they're all selling for WAY over $1000, so there is no way apple would undercut them by a massive amount, if at all.

maybe in 2009 ... i just got my Samsung 42 inch with full hd and Divx HD for 429 Euro. a panasonic 50 3D tv sells for 599 Euro. LG you can get pretty decent ones for 399 euro (50 inch)
 
What I'm expecting is that Apple will get streaming contracts with many different providers and this will be a part of the small Apple TV device. For a small fee, like maybe $10/month, you can get like 40 networks streaming like ESPN, Comedy Central, ABC Family, CNN, Fox, AMC, etc. etc. (Actually what I would like is a small fee like $5/month, and then you can add each additional channel individually to the package. It would be like 45 cents for ESPN, 12 cents for Comedy Central, etc. etc.) Then carriers would not be able to dictate what we watch. If ESPN wanted to raise rates, well then, us as consumers could choose to pay the new 60 cent rate, or drop ESPN.

Apple will want to control the whole experience, so you can OPTIONALLY buy a hardware TV with the Apple TV device built-in to it.

This is similar to how apple sells iMacs, but also sells Mac Minis. This makes the most sense. The reason to get the TV instead of using the Apple TV device with your own TV would be that the new Apple hardware TV would have a built-in Apple TV unit that comes up when the TV is turned on and no source-changing is necessary, and only one remote control is needed.

That would be nice. Although the reason that cable bills are through the roof is that companies like ESPN are charging the providers huge dollars to carry their stations. I doubt Apple will get ESPN for 45 cents when they are charging Comcast 15 bucks. The content issues and cable company monopolies are what are making all of these Apple TV rumors so hard to believe.
 
Android knock-off coming 2 months after Apple release theirs.

One slight issue with this; GoogleTV has been out for a while now. I agree it sucks, but they did beat Apple to market with software integrated into the TV itself.

Also to all those harping about the Xbox, MS requires a gold subscription to Live in order to use all those great functions (then additional subscriptions to Netflix and other content). As long as that exists very few non-gamers will use the device as a set top box.
 
Most people I know have either satellite or cable and bypass their TVs user interface almost completely once set up. I would guess that a large number of these folks also use an external receiver / speaker setup.

I'm not sure what Apple can bring to the table (as far as a UI) that will even be used. Unless they can figure out how to let SIRI change the channels on my DVR. This Apple TV might be the next Newton.

Excellent point, everyone I know as well who buys a new TV plugs their DVR in and never uses the TV's UI. This is why Apple are trying to work on aqcuiring content to push and not make "just another TV" They want people to skip the DVR. I do agree with you in that I can't see it taking off.
 
I don't get this line of thinking.

You can currently get a 50" TV for anywhere between $400 Vizio and $2000 Sony. Apple will undoubtedly use a more expensive TV with much better parts, add $200 to the cost of it for the integration of Apple TV, and charge that.

When the Apple television set for $2200 comes out, people will claim it's the same as the $400 Vizio TV with an $1800 'apple tax', when that is the furthest from the truth.

I would completely agree that if Apple charges $2200 - $2400 it would be perfectly reasonable.

However, I recall reading something on MR (sorry, I can't remember the source) that the estimate for an Apple TV would be more like $6,000 to $7,000. And this was when the discussion was about a TV under 40".

But, certainly, I may be completely wrong about this - and it is merely conjecture on my part, at best.;) :D
 
Well, I continue to be unenthused and skeptical about this idea.

However, I know Apple has a pretty good track record despite skepticism from folks like me.

"An Apple MP3 player? I don't think this is a good idea..."

"An iPod phone? I don't think that will work..."

"An Apple tablet that doesn't run OS X? That's not a good idea..."
 
It was a silly rumor last time around and it's still a silly rumor. There's just no reason to sell a TV, just improve appleTV and people can hook it up to whatever TV they already own. Trying to shoehorn a product into the "iMac" philosophy when it doesn't fit is not a good idea.
 
Hopefully this is above and beyond what we have now in the market. Or else it won't be selling,, I'm holding off getting a tv waiting for this baby
 
Don't understand why this article implies that this device is called iTV. At what point did Apple announce that they were releasing a TV and that they we calling it "iTV"?

Also iTV is a registered TradeMark in the UK and if I'm not mistaken they had already renamed AppleTV from iTV because of the this mark.
 
so people in the US have to pay for watching regular tv? why not just get satellite tv?

its free here and also in HD

looks like the us is not just being ripped off from phone companies ;)
 
Android knock-off coming 2 months after Apple release theirs.

Difference: Samsung, LG and Sony already make TVs. If anything, Apple would be the knock-off since we like to play the "the iDevice was first!" game on this site and everything else is copied (unless Apple copies it, then it is 'revolutionary').
 
This TV rumors it's just BS if you ask me. Apple probably is focusing on content distribution and a new low cost revamped ATV box.
That would be much easier to sell and spread Apple dominance in the living room than a huge and expensive TV.
 
Well, I continue to be unenthused and skeptical about this idea.

However, I know Apple has a pretty good track record despite skepticism from folks like me.

"An Apple MP3 player? I don't think this is a good idea..."

"An iPod phone? I don't think that will work..."

"An Apple tablet that doesn't run OS X? That's not a good idea..."

Again - the decisions and lifecycle of TV purchases is not even remotely like an MP3 player, iPod, iPhone or tablet.

I don't think anyone would argue whether or not Apple could make a good tv. That's not the point.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.