I don't know why Apple is not making fax machines and typewriters....there is soooo much more money to be had in that arena than trying to make TV sets!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uh... I don't use my XBOX for media, I use it for games. And I still don't see why they would be competing. I play on my iPhone and on my XBOX, totally different games.
For an Apple TV set to work, they need to NOT forget about boxes that the used will want to keep. I for one, intend to keep my XBOX and my BR player. So put an HDMI input so I can feed you my stuff.
Streamed media is still way too compressed for my eyes. It's ok for the tv shows and crappy movies. But LOTR? Blueray, baby.
Better yet, put the features in an AppleTV box. Fine, sell it for 200$ instead of 100$, I don't care, but give me a ****ing option. An Apple set would not be replacing a 100-200 phone, but a 1000-2000 TV.
On another note, I can't wait to see morons waiting in line for 2-3 days to get their TV only to be too tired to carry it once they get it...
What if they apply the same pricing model used by cell phone providers (and for the iPhone). They could reduce pricing based upon the tier of package that you select.
Let's say they offered three packages: Basic, Extended, and Pro - each with a higher price (Example: $15.00, $25.00, $35.00). If you select the basic package, and sign up for a one year subscription the price of the tv is $1499.00. If you sign up for the Extended package the price is $999.00. If you select the Pro package, the price would be $599.00. If you cancel your subscription you will have to pay a fee similarly as if you cancel your mobile service.
Also, add an additional $200 for each step up in size. 32", 46" (+200) and 60" (+400).
Lastly, they could offer users the ability to add specific channels on a price per channel basis. Some would be priced at .99 per month, and some would be 2.99, 5.99...
This would bring significant additional revenue to the networks, and would target people that currently do not have any service, as well as people looking to switch services.
Let's say they offered three packages: Basic, Extended, and Pro - each with a higher price (Example: $15.00, $25.00, $35.00). If you select the basic package, and sign up for a one year subscription the price of the tv is $1499.00. If you sign up for the Extended package the price is $999.00. If you select the Pro package, the price would be $599.00. If you cancel your subscription you will have to pay a fee similarly as if you cancel your mobile service.
Also, add an additional $200 for each step up in size. 32", 46" (+200) and 60" (+400).
Lastly, they could offer users the ability to add specific channels on a price per channel basis. Some would be priced at .99 per month, and some would be 2.99, 5.99...
This would bring significant additional revenue to the networks, and would target people that currently do not have any service, as well as people looking to switch services.
Ouch! Google TV Returns Outnumber Sales
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/07/google-tv-not-selling/
the idea is to cancel cable, not add to the bill
or just buy another TV with internet capability along with blu ray and maybe a roku box and cancel cable?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
DEFINITELY going to have to agree with you, apple isnt just gonna put out a product they don't control.
bbeagle said:
DEFINITELY going to have to agree with you, apple isnt just gonna put out a product they don't control.
Ouch! Google TV Returns Outnumber Sales
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/07/google-tv-not-selling/
How can returns outnumber sales?
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 thatTV wouldn't/couldn't.
If Apple wants to tackle interface, they need to start posturing the
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
Yep, that has been always my thinking as well. Makes no sense to Apple to jump into a market that has great quality products and very low profit margins. Keep also in mind all the costs associate with warehousing and distribution of such large displays. I am sure Apple much rather sell a small ATV box in the millions and have control over the distribution than sell huge displays. At the end the displays are just displays, Apple doesn't need to go there to revolutionize the user experience.
I can see it already. Apple engineer carries 50" TV set to bar, leaves drunk without it. Comes back the next day:"Excuse me, have you seen my TV set, I left it there on the table? "
It seems crazy to me for Apple to even manufacture a TV without being able to offer the same range of size options as all the major competitors. People complain about Apple only having a single 27" Cinema Display and I think TV size and specifications are a lot more particular given room size, etc. I have a 65" in my living room and would never consider something smaller no matter how amazing it is. I'm sure most people have 32" - 52" TV's so I'm probably in the minority here.
TV's are also a major purchase with a lifespan much longer than that that of a computer. I'd be pissed if I had to keep upgrading my $2000+ TV every couple years just to have the latest and greatest Apple TV product. I just paid a ton for my TV and will not be due for an upgrade for at least the next 3 - 4 years, most likely much longer.
I can see Apple building a larger, external Apple TV device similar to the current ones but that acts more like a receiver with multiple source inputs and an external camera/mic. It's going to need to play nice with multiple external sources but would be very cool if Apple could partner with the major players and allow integrated control of external content (Comcast/TW/AT&T/Direct TV) through it's UI.
An external device would open the product up to a much larger user base by making it relatively inexpensive, cheaper and easier to upgrade and allowing flexibility over the TV size and specifications.
TV's are also a major purchase with a lifespan much longer than that that of a computer. I'd be pissed if I had to keep upgrading my $2000+ TV every couple years just to have the latest and greatest Apple TV product. I just paid a ton for my TV and will not be due for an upgrade for at least the next 3 - 4 years, most likely much longer.
I can see Apple building a larger, external Apple TV device similar to the current ones but that acts more like a receiver with multiple source inputs and an external camera/mic. It's going to need to play nice with multiple external sources but would be very cool if Apple could partner with the major players and allow integrated control of external content (Comcast/TW/AT&T/Direct TV) through it's UI.
An external device would open the product up to a much larger user base by making it relatively inexpensive, cheaper and easier to upgrade and allowing flexibility over the TV size and specifications.
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
No, in fact, 'people in the US' get FREE HDTV from all major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB, PBS) plus local channels via a $20 digital antenna. But most poeple opt for either Satellite, cable, and/or Netflix/Amazon/iTunes.
I personally enjoy hours of entertainment on an HDTV antenna and Netflix, but that's me. To each his own.
Yes, you wouldn't need cable in addition to the apple tv.
The advantage that this model would offer is that the networks are still able to make money because people aren't purchasing only 4-5 channels for $.99 or so. And the apple tv is more affordable because the pricing is subsidized based on the subscription fees.
My prediction: They will expand on their current selection of season passes for TV shows and HD content. Buying shows is actually a good idea in the long run. They will make a deal with Hulu and have Hulu and Netflix available for streaming. They might even provide Hulu for free and subsidize the cost, although Apple isn't known to subsidize. As for the TV, it will be a dumb screen that integrates a separate AppleTV box seamlessly. If they put the box inside the TV, it is too hard to keep updated and they know TV's won't have the same replacement cycle as phones and tablets. Besides, they need to keep selling the box for people who have other TV's but want to buy content from iTunes.
edit:
Wonder why the Hulu app for iOS doesn't have airplay streaming? It's because they are likely negotiating some deal with Apple.
Maybe a few days of interest on $80B could just buy ITV, the entire company. Sell off all their assets (other than the trademark) to recoup.
This article does not say there will be a television set to come from Apple. It still says "These people believe there is a television set coming from Apple but more likely it's a new TV."
I still believe Apple is NOT working on a television set at the current point in time.
I still believe Apple is working on a new TV.
Only Apple knows for sure. But that's my best guess.
I still believe Apple is NOT working on a television set at the current point in time.
I still believe Apple is working on a new TV.
Only Apple knows for sure. But that's my best guess.
They charge about the same as any other manufacturer who produce LED backlit wide gamut IPS monitors. All of those usually price in the $800-$1000 range.
If you want to look at an expensive monitor, go find an Eizo.
Here you go. I could hear my wallet screaming just by looking at pictures of the thing. Makes $999 for a 27" seem pretty reasonable.
Last edited:
Apple TV will have to be able to replace my cable provider (pretty easy, I've been itching to dump them anyway) Replace my DVR function that allows me to stream to any other device in the house, and it must offer some hardware integration with the TV that makes it a unique solution that a stand alone box cannot offer. I think it will include the patent Apple has on putting a CCD in the 4th slot of an RGB pixel and provide a 3D camera input that supports video conferencing, motion detection with 3d recognition for gaming and security. i.e. parental controls or account management. Maybe Siri teams up with facial and motion based 3D recognition? Oh and the display should be 3D as well, preferably the passive kind
I'd buy that.
I'd buy that.
Of course there is! Apple have always wanted to control the entire user experience, from beginning to end. Which is why they are both a software and hardware company. Which is why they didn't continue to work with motorola on a phone, and why they never licensed OS X and instead made both the hardware and software themselves.
It's very Apple to build a TV with iOS/Apple TV built-in. They even build computer monitors, why not TVs?
Lots of people use consoles for media streaming. Just because YOU don't doesn't mean it's not a valid use case.
I have a PS3 at home that I use for Blu-Ray discs and Netflix. I can also stream movies from my NAS onto my TV using it. Guess how many PS3 games I own? Zero. I use it exclusively as a media device.
Although, ever since I got the Apple TV, I use the PS3 roughly half the time now.
re original article
better have 3 shots of whiskey before hearing what this appl 50 incher tv will cost
better have 3 shots of whiskey before hearing what this appl 50 incher tv will cost
Funny. Any mention of possible future Apple products and we see the competitions running to make the same or at lease study the possibilities of that product.
That's good, Apple makes everyone more competitive and we consumers benefits.
That's good, Apple makes everyone more competitive and we consumers benefits.
Like others have said, content is king when it comes to video and living room entertainment. Apple has the market on music and apps, but their video offerings are notably lacking. And as Netflix has proven, you have to shell out millions to the networks to get those rights and Apple is not likely to sink that kind of dollars into their video offerings on a "side-project."
I am also in the group that think that an all-in-one living room device is a bad idea. There are too many different living room setups and needs to get away with a 3-sizes fits all scheme. Some people want wall mount, some people want small screen, others want big screen, etc. Plus people will want to hook up their XBox and BluRay players to it and you know Apply will just stick a thunderbolt port on there and pretend it's good.
I simply can't see Apple competing in this already crowded market. When you have someone like Roku, who matches the apple TV feature for feature with the exception of iTunes (and they have Amazon instead) at a fraction of the cost, there's no way a $600 all-in-one is going to compete.
The only thing that might separate the AppleTV from the competition is to open it up to apps for real. Heck, Roku even has Angry Birds on it now. But if Apple were to get the apps market going on their TV, they might give Microsoft and Sony a run for their money. Of course they'll need to up the specs on the little box, because you're not going to push 50" worth of pixels in HD with an A5 processor.
Edited to add: The only company I can see getting into this space successfully is Amazon because they already have the content, between their rentals, video on demand and prime catalog. Pair it with their Android app store and willingness to undercut others on price and they could trounce the competition in a way Apple can't.
I am also in the group that think that an all-in-one living room device is a bad idea. There are too many different living room setups and needs to get away with a 3-sizes fits all scheme. Some people want wall mount, some people want small screen, others want big screen, etc. Plus people will want to hook up their XBox and BluRay players to it and you know Apply will just stick a thunderbolt port on there and pretend it's good.
I simply can't see Apple competing in this already crowded market. When you have someone like Roku, who matches the apple TV feature for feature with the exception of iTunes (and they have Amazon instead) at a fraction of the cost, there's no way a $600 all-in-one is going to compete.
The only thing that might separate the AppleTV from the competition is to open it up to apps for real. Heck, Roku even has Angry Birds on it now. But if Apple were to get the apps market going on their TV, they might give Microsoft and Sony a run for their money. Of course they'll need to up the specs on the little box, because you're not going to push 50" worth of pixels in HD with an A5 processor.
Edited to add: The only company I can see getting into this space successfully is Amazon because they already have the content, between their rentals, video on demand and prime catalog. Pair it with their Android app store and willingness to undercut others on price and they could trounce the competition in a way Apple can't.