Rogers and BCE Already Have the Apple iTV in Their Labs, Controlled with Voice and Hand Gestures

[damir00]

Funny enough the media is going to promote it as the next coming of Christ and it'll sell anyway.

Dunno about that. We have at least one of every Apple product in our home. Pre-ordered both AppleTV releases, even. Love the things.

But of all that has been suggested for this "TV", here on this thread, none of it is appealing enough to warrant a purchase, as it all ties back to the cable provider, who we kicked to the curb (for "channels") more than a decade ago.

----------

Will you knock it off now?

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/Broadband-250/

$115 with 1TB cap, $134 "unlimited".

Cheers.

 

[shompa]

They can't be that dumb can they? Releasing this information when Apple obviously would not let them and most likely having signed a NDA. Apple would go ballistic if true information about this was revealed.

I don't believe this report.

In case of Iphone, for example, Apple sends out test units to carries around the world before launch date. But these devices are locked into boxes so you cant see the design and without final software. Just basic phone access.

If Apple have sent TVs to partners, they also are locked down somehow so that the design/all features are covered.

But field testing have to be done. Sooner or later launch partners needs the Apple LCDTV.

 

[damir00]

...it certainly IS NOT 50$ including phone and TV.

You can believe what you want.

It's what Shaw offered us, and we are not alone, several of our friendswere offered the same deal. It did require a 12 month commitment, but as it was both cheaper and faster, that was an easy call to make.

 

[shompa]

I think USA posters should be reminded that CableCard is a USA-only thing.

Whatever Apple does will need to work world-wide. The little AppleTV box works fine, I don't see the obsession with an Apple TV set.

Change the Apple TV box, make it so it can be installed on top of a TV, add a mic and camera and voilà, instant FaceTime device.

Some people still use CRT TVs, so if Apple thinks people will replace their brand-new LCD/plasma/whatever for a complete Apple TV set, they're out of their collective minds.

There is no country outside US

Have you looked at the patents that Apple have filed for the LCDTV? Its insanely great. A set top box cant achieve that kind of stuff.

Apple have an unique position since they have content in Itunes. The TV project is closely linked to this. Putting a crazy powerful processor inside a TV like the A6 gives Apple some unique features. Look at iOS and how they use the "Apple visual processor" in A5. The picture quality can be amazing with A6 visual processing. (patently Apple have the patents of Apple LCD TV)

No TV content today is over 720P. Upscaling is important. Here Apple visual processor would enhance picture quality greatly.

Apple have also spent over 500 million on Sharp to make LCD displays with an unique technique. Maybe these will be used in Apples LCDTV.

 

[Joshwawilson]

From 9to5mac in Nov 2011:

"iOS release history tells us that as a product in development moves even closer to release, it is assigned a proper codename. Not only an identifier like “3,1″ but a codename such as N94 (iPhone 4S) or K48 (original iPad).*The next-generation Apple TV has reached that stage. Thanks to today’s beta release of iOS 5.1, we have on our hands the codename for this new Apple TV (3,1).



As you can see above, the new Apple TV is rocking a the J33 codename, the second JXX product we’ve seen from Apple. The*first was the J2 – a new iPad – that we discovered just last week. Apple’s iPad 2 almost reached the peak of Apple’s KXX options with the CDMA version dubbed as K95, so Apple’s move to JXX nomenclature is something that would have to happen sooner or later. With Apple recently beefing up their flagship tablets and phones with dual-core A5 chips, we think this new Apple TV represents an A5 dual-core model that packs in 1080P playback abilities.*As to whether this thing has a display on it, it is too early for us to tell.

Thanks, as always,*iH8Sn0w!"

Only time will tell what Apple's planning. I'm liking the idea of an Apple tv3 set box. Maybe it will be sort of a central hub system similar to a traditional receiver but with Apples software running on it. Just a theory

 

[KanosWRX]

Apple is going to see a huge backlash I feel, even from a majority of their fans if they release a full blown tv and not a small box like the ATv 1 or 2. People aready own HDTV's that they have spent thousands on. They are not going to buy a new TV every year like they buy a new iPhone. I can justify a couple hundred bucks for phone or ipad.. but I can't justify a couple thousand dollars to get the latest and greatest Big Apple TV every year or every other year. And I am guessing 95% of the world would agree.

It's just not going to happen Apple. But I guess they have that 100 billion they are sitting on, I guess one failure won't hurt them to much.

Their is absolutely ZERO reason for Apple to brand a TV for themselves. Just make a device everyone can use and hook up to the TV's they already have.

 

[Drunken Master]

Apple is going to see a huge backlash I feel, even from a majority of their fans if they release a full blown tv and not a small box like the ATv 1 or 2. People aready own HDTV's that they have spent thousands on. They are not going to buy a new TV every year like they buy a new iPhone. I can justify a couple hundred bucks for phone or ipad.. but I can't justify a couple thousand dollars to get the latest and greatest Big Apple TV every year or every other year. And I am guessing 95% of the world would agree.

It's just not going to happen Apple. But I guess they have that 100 billion they are sitting on, I guess one failure won't hurt them to much.

Their is absolutely ZERO reason for Apple to brand a TV for themselves. Just make a device everyone can use and hook up to the TV's they already have.

And the current Apple TV 2 isn't even all that popular either, relatively speaking.

An iTV would probably be less successful than the box. A "smart TV" sadly still feels like a dumb idea. I don't want Facebook on my television; there was even that Christmas ad for that one Sharp (?) smart TV that had the opposite effect: husband at the party fires up FB on his TV and finds his wife criticizing him on there. Who wants that?

 

[Blomkvist]

Apple is going to see a huge backlash I feel, even from a majority of their fans if they release a full blown tv and not a small box like the ATv 1 or 2. People aready own HDTV's that they have spent thousands on. They are not going to buy a new TV every year like they buy a new iPhone. I can justify a couple hundred bucks for phone or ipad.. but I can't justify a couple thousand dollars to get the latest and greatest Big Apple TV every year or every other year. And I am guessing 95% of the world would agree.

It's just not going to happen Apple. But I guess they have that 100 billion they are sitting on, I guess one failure won't hurt them to much.

Their is absolutely ZERO reason for Apple to brand a TV for themselves. Just make a device everyone can use and hook up to the TV's they already have.

With respect, I must totally disagree with your logic. By that same line of thinking, no retailer would be selling t.v.'s right now...because "everyone already has one". There is significant demand out there for new t.v.'s, therefore, if Apple enters that market they will sell units. It is very likely that the new Apple TV unit will cost more than a similar-sized/display technology unit, but it will have Apple design and chipsets in it that allow unique functionality.

 

[JAT]

because others are doing it

in 5 years if apple doesn't make a full TV you will be able to buy a TV with an integrated cable box inside as well as pay for services to buy/rent content and music. that's a lot of potential lost itunes business.

You keep saying integrated cable box. But the cablecos don't like that. They tried it once, do you see any such TVs available for sale now? No. Before that, the analog cable got merged into TV tuners, they hated that and were very happy to upgrade to digital that worked differently, even though it still had the same crappy picture. (digital <> HD) Then they were forced into cablecards, which they hate and do their best to not enforce, although the FCC does force them from time to time.

This is a major, major hurdle for anyone to overcome. Apple may have some power, they did turn a couple other industries on their ear, a bit. But I really don't see anything drastic occuring short term, regardless.

Personally, I dumped them over a year ago. I have an antenna and 40Mb internet, no TV, no wired phone service. Watching what I want is sometimes trickier than when I had 500+ channels and 6 DVR tuners, but it's been worth it so far. And I'm back to 4 DVR tuners.

 

[ncaissie]

If Siri doesn't work without an Internet connection then it's already failed.

I don't think Apple would allow that. If they keep siri on their servers there is less chance people can steal it. I know there are knock offs but they are probably not as good.

 

[ILikeTurtles]

No way. I call Bull Crappy on this entire rumor.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Have you looked at the patents that Apple have filed for the LCDTV? Its insanely great. A set top box cant achieve that kind of stuff.

and

but it will have Apple design and chipsets in it that allow unique functionality.

Please enlighten us on what a big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can contain that an Apple set-top box hooked to someone else's big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can't. I'm serious. All along, I've been looking for the answer to "why do they have to build a whole television?" and all I seem to get are software-oriented answers that would work just as well in an TV3.

What chipset functions can only function in a whole TV? What unique functionality is only possible in a whole TV?

That's the fundamental problem with this rumor. If you separate the software from the hardware (assuming an TV3 is also available), the hardware must win buyers on its merits alone. Siri is software. Apps are software. iTunes is software. The hypothetical cable subscription killer is software. Why do they have to build a whole television that can't be done in an TV3?

You keep saying integrated cable box. But the cablecos don't like that. They tried it once, do you see any such TVs available for sale now? No. Before that, the analog cable got merged into TV tuners, they hated that and were very happy to upgrade to digital that worked differently, even though it still had the same crappy picture. (digital <> HD) Then they were forced into cablecards, which they hate and do their best to not enforce, although the FCC does force them from time to time.

This is a major, major hurdle for anyone to overcome.

Exactly right. As usual- HERE- people just imagine whatever is necessary to make the rumored Apple thing work, ignoring the realities that other companies don't want to just cut their own throats to make Apple's new offerings fly. Particularly in this case- where the choice of cable supplier is often a SINGLE entity (or 3 if you count SATT players), what motivation do they have to pay Apple a subsidy to make this television a cheap purchase for us consumers? After all, if the rumor is that Apple will partner with ONE player in a market, you'd have to sign on with that ONE player if you wanted the subsidized price. Personally, I have DISH network as my video supplier but Comcast is the ONLY cable player in my area. If Apple bundled with Comcast to offer this TV at a subsidized price, I wouldn't want to switch from DISH to Comcast to get it (even if I was interested).

As I've said over and over. This television rumor is a mess. There needs to be something more to it than we're getting/dreaming. There needs to be something bigger than just another TV with a built-in TV3 giving us Siri and gesture options. And I mean something a LOT bigger that somehow can't be done in a set-top box OR the set-top box dies and the only way to get an TV3 is inside of this Apple Television. To me, that seems the most plausible play by Apple (to reunify Apple software with Apple hardware in an exclusive way), but Apple admitted with the gen 2 device that the price of gen 1 was too high for mass adoption. This concept would make the gen 3 version incorporate the cost of a whole HDTV. Total mess.

 

[ctdonath]

My thoughts in an image: OMG!!!

My thoughts on that image: YUCK!!!

That's the core problem redux: hundreds of rows of dozens of columns requiring lots of scrolling to find something that may appeal due to a short barely (or un-) descriptive name. Moronic, but the only thing to do when the interface is little more than a dumb up/down/left/right/select. (Never mind the commercials...) Show me what I'm likely to have an interest in, don't show what I don't, and don't tell me I have to wait to see something (save maybe for "world premiere" release).

That vs. current TV, with on-demand suggestion-driven list-keeping searchable no-commercials content. Only thing it's missing is live events & targeted news.

The paramount concept which seems missed in the whole discussion: "here we are now, entertain us." TV+Netflix gives me a broad dynamic menu of what will entertain.

Thought: if there's gonna be a camera, then use facial recognition to identify who is present and who tends to watch what. If it's just me in the room, offer gritty action/scifi; if just the kids, Dora/Kipper/etc.; if wife & I, romantic comedies; if a mix of family members, an intersection of individual or subgroup interests. Man, that would take care of a lot right there.

 

[hamlin]

I live in Thunder bay and have shaw cable internet. 25 mbps for 45$ a month, 125 gb included. You guys in Toronto must have it real bad

 

[JAT]

All along, I've been looking for the answer to "why do they have to build a whole television?"

The only possible answer that would make sense to you and I is new tech. ie: OLED or ???

 

[tido2012]

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)

Hopefully the 42 in" is just to test it because after having a 55in LCD I wouldn't want to use a 42", even though the iTV will be sure to be amazing.

 

[ctdonath]

Please enlighten us on what a big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can contain that an Apple set-top box hooked to someone else's big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can't. I'm serious.

I'm sympathetic to the question's tone. Give me the box, let me pick the monitor.

That said, Apple focuses on complete experience, and nit-picking annoyances that exist with most monitors (aka HDTVs) detract from the complete experience. There's a reason the iMac is a return to the original all-in-one box: Apple provides the complete experience.

I'd expect Apple provide the "cheap box" solution, and that the TV3 be a mere HDMI dongle with some notable improvements over the current model.

But for those who want the complete experience, those willing/needing to upgrade/replace what they have (yes, people do), then heck yeah Apple should offer a tablet-thin integrated everything-exceeds-user's-perceptions device. Give me an iPad in 42" and 55" versions (same specs, just bigger).

Having worked in Kodak's digital cinema department, I'm cursed with spotting all the shortcuts everyone's big, thin metal & plastic boxes with large screens take to keep those prices down. EL backlighting? I see the inconsistent intensity. 60Hz? 120Hz? judder-inducing compensation for 24fps content. LCD? image persistence. You get the idea. Most of it comes from making do with what's already in the credit-driven supply chain. Would that someone like Apple have the wherewithal to pay big bucks up front to get the right display built, something whose specs are good enough (a la "retina") that specs just don't matter. Build in the TV3, include whatever cameras/sensors needed to enhance the experience (can't just slap those on someone else's big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen), and then we have a complete experience nobody else can match (yet).

Upshot: the more I think about it, the more the built-in camera/sensors is a HUGE deal - stuff that changes the total experience that much can't be retrofitted in the Apple way. Out of the box, onto the wall, "Good morning, Darryl."

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The only possible answer that would make sense to you and I is new tech. ie: OLED or ???

Exactly. Brand new technology in the screen. At CES, some large (I think around 55") OLED screen HDTVs were shown by 1-2 manufacturers. Correct me if I'm wrong but they didn't reveal their MSRPs there. I suspect it's not because it will be an unexpected bargain vs. LED, LCD & Plasma.

I've seen some people talk about 4K too. Again, price would likely be sky high if Apple is the brand that rolls out 4K and then there is a slew of messes related to content at 4K (including the endless justifications of 720p as the better choice over 1080p: file sizes, bandwidth limitation, national internet infrastructure, "the chart", blah, blah, blah). While so many HERE have long rallied against 1080p, do we now embrace 4K?

Etc. I think it has to be something like that... something that might make us all feel our existing sets are obsolete or near obsolete... that we can't be max cool unless we get that new whiz-bang television from Apple that can do that thing that other sets can't. This is always where the rumors thin out.

OLED & 4K is not going to be $1499 for 42". Probably not $1999. Probably not $2999. 3D without the glasses is probably not going to be $1499 for 42". Probably not $1999. However, it's along these lines- these non-software-driven lines- where the "magical" must lie. What requires a whole television that can't be done in an TV3? And the answer must be strong enough to potentially motivate a lot of people who don't frequent this site to want to buy a new HDTV (probably replacing a still new HDTV with someone else's brandmark on it).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm sympathetic to the question's tone. Give me the box, let me pick the monitor.

That said, Apple focuses on complete experience, and nit-picking annoyances that exist with most monitors (aka HDTVs) detract from the complete experience. There's a reason the iMac is a return to the original all-in-one box: Apple provides the complete experience.

I appreciate your whole post- very intelligent. And I myself easily justified buying an iMac for my own use. For me the big justification was OS X without having to go the hackintosh path. Unique Apple software blended with unique Apple hardware. That can motivate ME to pay some premium for a whole product from Apple.

In this case- assuming that there would also be an TV3- Apple endorsed software can be wholly separate from an Apple hardware creation. In my case, I'm a big guy with big hands. The iPhone screen is just too small for me. Some of those new Android phones with much bigger screens would work well. But I don't really want Android. If Apple sold iOS separate from iPhone, I'd be very likely to buy one of those bigger screen Android phones, install iOS on it and get something that fits my own needs.

If OS X was suddenly available separate from Macs, my next purchase wouldn't automatically be another Apple hardware computer. I'd probably save the cost by buying someone else's equivalent hardware even if it wasn't packaged quite as pretty (personally, I don't care enough about the esthetics to let it dominate such a decision: it's what it does much more than how it looks).

The television may be different than everything else Apple has launched in the last 10 years because the software may be wholly available on other manufacturers televisions via an Apple endorsed TV3.

But for those who want the complete experience, those willing/needing to upgrade/replace what they have (yes, people do), then heck yeah Apple should offer a tablet-thin integrated everything-exceeds-user's-perceptions device. Give me an iPad in 42" and 55" versions (same specs, just bigger).

Having worked in Kodak's digital cinema department, I'm cursed with spotting all the shortcuts everyone's big, thin metal & plastic boxes with large screens take to keep those prices down. EL backlighting? I see the inconsistent intensity. 60Hz? 120Hz? judder-inducing compensation for 24fps content. LCD? image persistence. You get the idea. Most of it comes from making do with what's already in the credit-driven supply chain. Would that someone like Apple have the wherewithal to pay big bucks up front to get the right display built, something whose specs are good enough (a la "retina") that specs just don't matter. Build in the TV3, include whatever cameras/sensors needed to enhance the experience (can't just slap those on someone else's big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen), and then we have a complete experience nobody else can match (yet).

Upshot: the more I think about it, the more the built-in camera/sensors is a HUGE deal - stuff that changes the total experience that much can't be retrofitted in the Apple way. Out of the box, onto the wall, "Good morning, Darryl."

Sure, but then what's the price of that thing you just described? I'm not overly hung up on price (I do have that iMac and other Apple hardware) but if we start slinging big performance hardware dreams into this rumored television, we have to imagine the Apple price of that too.

Sure Apple could take no shortcuts in the hardware so that they release the definitive technology for displaying video at home. But then, we're definitely not talking about 42" at $999, $1499, $1999 or $2999. And IMO, the market able to actually see that difference- AND PAY FOR IT- is going to make the TV "hobby" sales volume look like one of the best selling devices by comparison.

 

[JAT]

Exactly. Brand new technology in the screen. At CES, some large (I think around 55") OLED screen HDTVs were shown by 1-2 manufacturers. Correct me if I'm wrong but they didn't reveal their MSRPs there. I suspect it's not because it will be an unexpected bargain vs. LED, LCD & Plasma.

I've seen reports about the LG 55" at $8000. Late 2012.

 

[pondosinatra]

I live in Thunder bay and have shaw cable internet. 25 mbps for 45$ a month, 125 gb included. You guys in Toronto must have it real bad

Um, dude, you're living in Thunder Bay - that's bad enough

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I've seen reports about the LG 55" at $8000. Late 2012.

I figured that. So it seems at least plausible that if we cling to this idea that Best Buy has guessed correct about a 42" Apple Television priced at $1499, it's probably not going to be using OLED. Note, I'm also pretty confident that it wouldn't be 4K at that size & price either.

Of course, BB could be guessing size or price wrong. But if it's price, you can just jump through this thread of (I assume mostly) Apple enthusiasts and see a fair amount of "no way I'm paying $1499" posts, many not turned onto Apple choosing screen size and screen type for them, etc. We're all Apple enthusiasts. What do people who aren't HERE going to think of an Apple Television priced toward the top of the market when the salesperson could also point them to the same hardware branded Samsung/LG/Sharp/etc for hundreds less plus an approx. $100 box from Apple to get about the same (software-driven) experience?

It's why I think the rumor is such a mess. If we assume the software experience can still be purchased separately, the "magical" must be in the hardware. So then we start trying to imagine what greatness can be put into the hardware to make this sell well and just about every muscular guess comes with a frightening price guess. OLED. 4K. 3D without glasses. If $1499 is too much for many of us enthusiasts, what can it be in hardware innovations that doesn't pump the price on up too?

 

[pdxmacster]

An onscreen keyboard controlled with hand gestures? I am very interested in seeing how Apple makes it work.

Wild (uneducated) guess:

The Apple TV will have multiple cameras and a microphone that will allow the TV to triangulate the user's voice, eyes and index finger. Siri voice commands will allow the user to either issue direct commands ("Siri, NBC please", "Siri, pause movie", "Siri, volume down", etc.) or to call up menus (programs, TV settings), that will appear as a semi-transparent on-screen overlay. At this point, you will be able to use your index finger to click buttons, move slider handles and even type a virtual keyboard, just by pointing at the on-screen menu elements. Based on the position and movement of the user's index finger, the Apple TV will be able to determine which menu elements (incl. buttons, sliders) the user is pointing at and clicking.

 

[JAT]

I figured that. So it seems at least plausible that if we cling to this idea that Best Buy has guessed correct about a 42" Apple Television priced at $1499, it's probably not going to be using OLED. Note, I'm also pretty confident that it wouldn't be 4K at that size & price either.

Of course, BB could be guessing size or price wrong. But if it's price, you can just jump through this thread of (I assume mostly) Apple enthusiasts and see a fair amount of "no way I'm paying $1499" posts, many not turned onto Apple choosing screen size and screen type for them, etc. We're all Apple enthusiasts. What do people who aren't HERE going to think of an Apple Television priced toward the top of the market when the salesperson could also point them to the same hardware branded Samsung/LG/Sharp/etc for hundreds less plus an approx. $100 box from Apple to get about the same (software-driven) experience?

Far too many here are iPod enthusiasts, or iPhone. They don't get the $1100 "netbook", either. Personally, I have Minis connected to my displays directly. Certainly don't need an Apple TV, little box or TV.

I doubt 4K at all. That will be a video enthusiast niche tech, for years to come. Apple has shown recently they are going for broader markets. Not dirt-poor markets, but broad otherwise.

----------

Wild (uneducated) guess:

The Apple TV will have multiple cameras and a microphone that will allow the TV to triangulate the user's voice, eyes and index finger.

Which user? We had 6 or more in the room on Sunday for the super bowl. I'm sure some had 20. Sounds cool, but I just don't know if anyone is there, yet.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Wild (uneducated) guess:

The Apple TV will have multiple cameras and a microphone that will allow the TV to triangulate the user's voice, eyes and index finger. Siri voice commands will allow the user to either issue direct commands ("Siri, NBC please", "Siri, pause movie", "Siri, volume down", etc.) or to call up menus (programs, TV settings), that will appear as a semi-transparent on-screen overlay. At this point, you will be able to use your index finger to click buttons, move slider handles and even type a virtual keyboard, just by pointing at the on-screen menu elements. Based on the position and movement of the user's index finger, the Apple TV will be able to determine which menu elements (incl. buttons, sliders) the user is pointing at and clicking.

Might work if you are single, living alone. Each family member or guest that watches television with you will have their own voice, eyes and index fingers. Since there is this gestures rumor, I too can see 1+ cameras (which may be harder to replicate within or attached to an TV3)

Then again, consider the popular Kinect doesn't have lots of rumors of a Kinect television swirling around it. Apparently that little box handles gesture processing just fine (no whole television purchase required).

----------

Personally, I have Minis connected to my displays directly. Certainly don't need an Apple TV, little box or TV.

Personally, I'm increasingly thinking that the Mini is THE way to go too. What UI did you choose? Plex, XBMC, Front Row, something else? And if not Front Row, does whatever it is work well with iTunes embedded movie posters and content descriptions (like TV)?