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

[milo]

"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..."

True but there are examples going the other way - so far the appleTV hasn't set the world on fire, an iPod with no buttons. And plenty on the software/services side - MobileMe, iCloud, iTunes Match, etc.

so people in the US have to pay for watching regular tv?

Nope, not sure where you got that idea. It's free and HD in the USA as well.

 

[auero]

I still rather have them build a better Apple TV. You'd hit a lot more homes with a small affordable box than (what I assume) an expensive television. A lot of people I noticed are cheap and don't look at specs on a tv but what size it is and the cheapest that they can get it for even if its going with some brand name that started over night.

I personally wouldn't want anything smaller than 50" but I'm one person.

 

[TWSS37]

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.

And in this vein, this is why Google will beat Apple to the punch, so to speak. All of these set top boxes... Motorola being the largest provider - all have to develop the software (albeit very terrible software) for a UI. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a free platform such as say... Google TV... to replace these UI's over time?

While Apple wants to take over the hardware and software, Google just wants the software. And really, isn't that the difference between these companies at their core anyway? None of this is surprising.

 

[northy124]

Apple should try to be a content provider...Thoughts?

Like Netflix are trying to do? I doubt Apple will do that tbh... although they could have their own "Cable" plan ala Verizon and AT&T I guess?

It is way more likely that you will have a number of HDMI and USB connectors, but I would assume no 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. If Apple decides to release a TV (Big If) it will be compelling for all the things that it does that nobody else is doing and a great user experience that will promise to change a broken industry, not for being able to support classic TV.

Tbh I don't care as long as I can use the TV in both the EU and the US so as long as it is X/50hz and X/60hz I don't really mind... also it has to be revolutionary otherwise I won't buy it.

 

[flux73]

I still rather have them build a better Apple TV. You'd hit a lot more homes with a small affordable box than (what I assume) an expensive television. A lot of people I noticed are cheap and don't look at specs on a tv but what size it is and the cheapest that they can get it for even if its going with some brand name that started over night.

I personally wouldn't want anything smaller than 50" but I'm one person.

They're not mutually exclusive products you know? They could build both a TV set with the processor and software built in, as well as a box you can add on to your current screen. The analogous products would be the iMac and the Mac Mini.

The hardware and software are not what's going to make or break their foray into TV. It's a virtual certainty that they will create something that's nice to look at and easy to use. It's ALL about the content.

 

[Tones2]

I somewhat disagree. The only place where I've seen better movie content is Netflix and most of their streaming content is subpar.

Wow are YOU out of the loop here. First off, I'm not talking about physical DVDs but rather home streaming content that relevant to this discussion. Netflix totally sucks there - I wasn't talking about them. Cable providers have the best pay-per-view movie content by far, but even Amazon and Vudu FAR outclass the movie offerings of Apple, especially in terms of what can be rented. Take a look at the current releases on all four. Apple loses every time.

And in terms of books and magazines, sorry but Amazon blows away Apple in every sense - not only in terms of content, but also as important in terms of how you can view it on your computer as well as multiple phone / tablet manufacturer devices running under ANY OS.

And currently Apple TV2 has about 3 stations that you can rent TV shows from and you can't actually purchases or watch in any other way on Apple TV. Amazon blows them away again here through built TV / Blu ray player / Roku apps - no contest.

Like I said, Apple sucks at providing content and it's like they give up trying to get more after the initial product release. That'll be the same for the new "Apple TV" content. Media companies hate Apple and will fight against them to the extent they don't lose the market unjustifiably to Apple fanboys.

Tony

 

[Arran]

Content is king ... if I were Apple, I'd be looking to create another entity and just go out and acquire a few major content providers.

ABC, Disney and Pixar are not an issue. Pick up another mainline studio, a few independents, a strong production oriented TV network or two, some educational networks (Discovery Networks would be a pick) and just do the content.

I like that idea. They could create a handful of "channels" with wall-to-wall quality content and no filler or adverts. A bit like the BBC when I was a kid (70's, 80's): There were only two channels but there was plenty worth watching. And when there wasn't, we went outside

it was an international tv that allowed content anywhere in the world. I would buy it if i could watch news form my hometown nyc, japanese game shows, k-dramas, and idol from around the world. That would make me plunk over my cash. Oh yah and all of it all demand. That would be sweet

I like that idea too. I was originally speculating that Apple would just aggregate quality English-language programming. But why not create a single channel called "Best of Japanese TV", and another channel for "Best of Indian TV", and others for Italian, French, German, Russian, Chinese, etc. The US is so diverse they'd find enough subscribers for each.

 

[bushido]

Nope, not sure where you got that idea. It's free and HD in the USA as well.

my bad then. everyone in here makes it sound like it costs a fortune to watch tv in america and that people might rather just pay for shows they actually watch

---

so who's going to produce those tvs? clearly not apple alone. samsung?

 

[notjustjay]

I still rather have them build a better Apple TV. You'd hit a lot more homes with a small affordable box than (what I assume) an expensive television. A lot of people I noticed are cheap and don't look at specs on a tv but what size it is and the cheapest that they can get it for even if its going with some brand name that started over night.

I personally wouldn't want anything smaller than 50" but I'm one person.

I agree. There's just too much variety in TVs and rightfully so, so that people can choose exactly what they want for their room size and decor.

Size: 24"? 32"? 37"? 40"? 42"? 47"? 50"? 55"? 60"? 70"? even 80"?
Bezel: silver? flat black? gloss black? thin? thick? transparent? opaque? symmetrical? non-symmetrical (thicker at the bottom where the logo is)?
inputs: 3 HDMI? 4 HDMI? component? VGA? co-ax?
wall-mountable: not wall mountable? VESA wall mount? picture-frame-style wall mount?
internet connectivity: wireless? wired? netflix? custom apps?
remote: universal? learning? RF remote? touch screen? keyboard?
cost: varies hugely

Apple's going to try to compete against all that with just a couple of models? They'd better be really compelling if they're going to make people give up flexibility in order to choose whatever Apple settles on.

 

[C00rDiNaT0r]

The problem with the "smart TVs" out there, IMO, is that they are trying to make it work like PCs - *PERSONAL* computers. A TV in the living room is usually meant to be watched by MULTIPLE people at the same time.

What are the other viewers supposed to do, when one person wants to tweet about something via those on-screen, built-in widgets?


Off topic:

says [Microsoft general manager of content acquisition and strategy Ross] Honey.

heh that's an awesome last name

 

[applesith]

well of course they haven't made a deal. There is too much money in the current subscription/bundle model. No reason for the media companies to bend over backwards for apple.

 

[run4blue2]

my bad then. everyone in here makes it sound like it costs a fortune to watch tv in america and that people might rather just pay for shows they actually watch

---

so who's going to produce those tvs? clearly not apple alone. samsung?

It costs a fortune if you get cable to get more than a handful of channels and are then forced to pay for 100s of channels you have no interest in watching.

 

[VenusianSky]

All I really want is the ability to control my television, receiver and fios box all from my iPhone using a single app.

 

[iEvolution]

Wow are YOU out of the loop here. First off, I'm not talking about physical DVDs but rather home streaming content that relevant to this discussion. Netflix totally sucks there - I wasn't talking about them. Cable providers have the best pay-per-view movie content by far, but even Amazon and Vudu FAR outclass the movie offerings of Apple, especially in terms of what can be rented. Take a look at the current releases on all four. Apple loses every time.

Tony

Not to mention the current itunes pricing model is awful, some of the rentals are $4 for 24 hours. I certainly wouldn't buy a apple Tv if the price model and restrictiveness remained the same.

I actually find video prices on itunes insulting, they are equal or more expensive to physical media with drm garbage.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Well, my DVR can record two programs at the same time, plus you can watch another program as long as only two MUXes are involved. So once in a while we are recording two programs, want to watch something else, and can't. Always takes a minute until we remember that the TV has its own tuner. And it's a bloody nuisance because you can't pause it

 

[Robin4]

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.

I'm in.

 

[0098386]

It could easily be a 50" "thick" TV.

 

[Clive At Five]

I said it years ago when these ridiculous TV rumors started and I'll say it again. There's nothing a physical TV will solve that TV wouldn't/couldn't.

If Apple wants to tackle interface, they need to start posturing the TV device as the hub in which to plug all your tertiary devices. If your cable box, DVD/Blu-Ray, game consoles and speaker system plugged into the TV, THEN into your TV, Apple can owns the entire user-experience... and can do it on every existing TV, without trying to convince people to throw out their existing TVs for something so trite at user-experience. Remember, a TV is something that doesn't have a short lifespan, like phones and laptops. Adoption of a new TV is a hard sell for many people.

If Apple wants to redefine content-providing (which I'm absolutely 100% confident they do), there aren't going to be any hardware limitations that an Apple-branded TV will solve.

I'm certain Apple has TESTED the idea of an Apple-branded TV in their labs (and I think this is what Woz is referring to), but there's very little (if anything at all) that Apple can do to improve the bread-and-butter TV.

-Clive

 

[yg17]

my bad then. everyone in here makes it sound like it costs a fortune to watch tv in america and that people might rather just pay for shows they actually watch

Over the air networks (NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, ABC, maybe a couple other smaller ones) are free, but we're talking about roughly 10 channels depending on where you live - and if you live in a rural area, you might not be able to receive any of those channels over the air.

You need to pay for cable or satellite if you want additional channels (CNN, ESPN, TBS, Comedy Central, Discovery, HBO, etc). I get like 400 channels with my cable package. Only about 5 of those would be available for free over the air if I hooked up an antenna.

 

[samcraig]

I said it years ago when these ridiculous TV rumors started and I'll say it again. There's nothing a physical TV will solve that TV wouldn't/couldn't.

If Apple wants to tackle interface, they need to start posturing the TV device as the hub in which to plug all your tertiary devices. If your cable box, DVD/Blu-Ray, game consoles and speaker system plugged into the TV, THEN into your TV, Apple can owns the entire user-experience... and can do it on every existing TV, without trying to convince people to throw out their existing TVs for something so trite at user-experience. Remember, a TV is something that doesn't have a short lifespan, like phones and laptops. Adoption of a new TV is a hard sell for many people.

If Apple wants to redefine content-providing (which I'm absolutely 100% confident they do), there aren't going to be any hardware limitations that an Apple-branded TV will solve.

I'm certain Apple has TESTED the idea of an Apple-branded TV in their labs (and I think this is what Woz is referring to), but there's very little (if anything at all) that Apple can do to improve the bread-and-butter TV.

-Clive

Agreed. I'll add that I think it's perfectly OK for Apple to enter the TV market with hardware. No reason not to. Some people would love to own one. But whatever "solution" they come up with would have to be for both their TV and a separate box like they have now for every other TV. They could certainly have "exclusives" to their set boxes which would encourage new adoption when people are ready to buy a new set. But without offering both options - the adoption rate would be very slow because as you and I have said - the lifecycle of a TV purchase is MUCH slower than handheld electronics.

 

[Arran]

Biggest roadblock in three words.

Comcast Communications Incorporated.

Why are they a roadblock? Apple could go around them by broadcasting live (news/sports) programming in real time OTA (over the air with an antenna - like all the local HD stations in the US currently do). More "specialist" programming (i.e., with fewer subscribers) could be delivered over the internet. Heck, even some of that could be broadcast OTA, in advance (like overnight), and cached on the TV until you're ready to watch it.

Admittedly, this means that if you live outside a metro area you'll need an antenna in the loft. However, if you live close to the transmitter then perhaps an antenna built right into the TV might suffice? Not a huge investment, either way, if you can actually get some decent programming. I cut my cable over 10 years ago because there was too little real content spread way too thin and criminally overpriced.

 

[bushido]

Over the air networks (NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, ABC, maybe a couple other smaller ones) are free, but we're talking about roughly 10 channels depending on where you live - and if you live in a rural area, you might not be able to receive any of those channels over the air.

You need to pay for cable or satellite if you want additional channels (CNN, ESPN, TBS, Comedy Central, Discovery, HBO, etc). I get like 400 channels with my cable package. Only about 5 of those would be available for free over the air if I hooked up an antenna.

aah ok so kinda like here, i pay $50 for Sky incl HD & two in 3D (about 50+ channels) and 2go on my xbox, mac and iPad. i just assumed that u already have to pay for network tv.

 

[apolloa]

hahaha a 50" TV with the fruit logo on the back will cost what? $3000 at least? Considering they charge $999 for a 27" monitor.

 

[Tiger8]

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?

Microsoft was indeed one of the first companies to attempt to change the TV, thought it met with limited success. Windows XP 2005 Media Edition is actually a good piece of software. Now Media Center is standard in Windows 7.

I think Microsoft though failed to integrate the TV / PC experience. To this day, their Media Center is just an application, and even if you build a Microsoft HTPC, you need a wireless keyboard / mouse set. Too complicated for the average user.

And this is were Apple could potentially change the market, though I myself am still struggling with why not just further expand the 'Apple TV' hobby.

 

[ganymedes13]

Wow are YOU out of the loop here. First off, I'm not talking about physical DVDs but rather home streaming content that relevant to this discussion. Netflix totally sucks there - I wasn't talking about them. Cable providers have the best pay-per-view movie content by far, but even Amazon and Vudu FAR outclass the movie offerings of Apple, especially in terms of what can be rented. Take a look at the current releases on all four. Apple loses every time.

Have you rented or movies from Apple and Amazon? I once saw a movie that I was unable to buy or rent two weeks prior in HD because cable companies had bought the rights to that movie during that time period in HD. Only the SD version was available.

I don't really care about cable provider rentals. I haven't looked at them since the 90s when they were charging twice as much as Blockbuster. Even then cable UIs are horrific.

I even pay an extra $10/month for DVR on each of my cable boxes. Why should this be?

Try finding The Seven Samurai on Amazon or any Criterion Collection product available for streaming on Amazon. This is considered one of the greatest films of all time (top 5 by AFI) and Apple has it for streaming but Amazon does not.

And in terms of books and magazines, sorry but Amazon blows away Apple in every sense - not only in terms of content, but also as important in terms of how you can view it on your computer as well as multiple phone / tablet manufacturer devices running under ANY OS.

Do you really view magazines on a black and white e-ink Kindle or the 7" screen of the Kindle Fire? This is why I don't consider any digital offering of magazines other than the iPad.

And currently Apple TV2 has about 3 stations that you can rent TV shows from and you can't actually purchases or watch in any other way on Apple TV. Amazon blows them away again here through built TV / Blu ray player / Roku apps - no contest.

Like I said, Apple sucks at providing content and it's like they give up trying to get more after the initial product release. That'll be the same for the new "Apple TV" content. Media companies hate Apple and will fight against them to the extent they don't lose the market unjustifiably to Apple fanboys.

Tony

It doesn't really matter what solution you are offering when it can't replace what you already have if you are dissatisfied. If it doesn't replace cable then what is the point?

The solutions offered by others is only half the answer and doesn't solve the problem.