Ugh, this question is old. Yes, if they make a TV with known "TV" compatibility such as HDMI, Bluray will work on it.
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.
Speculation on Apple's Television Set: Range of Sizes, Device Integration, Premium Pricing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
YMMV - no problems here with a Comcast dual-decoder (two channels at once) CableCard in a TiVo HD. Picked up the card at the local Comcast strip-mall office - they put the IDs in the system, took it home a plugged it into the TiVo. The TiVo has two "recording" lights, so I can see that at times it does record on more than one channel.
My experience is that the voice menus are also programmed to recognize expletives and go to an operator. I say a string of NSFW words that would embarrass a sailor, and a human answers in seconds.
Right - TiVo "cracked the problem" ages ago.
A TV should just be a panel that you can buy from anyone.
I can see the benefiting in an integrated box for cable/sat, optical media (although can probably drop that), PVR and internet connectivity. An Apple version of this would be good. The biggest problem with either a box or a panel with the box included is the diversity of standards from the content providers; cable/sat providers and country specific broadcast standards. I'm not sure Apple is into building multiple versions of a product for international markets - they do have CDMA and GSM iPhones but with TV standards we are not talking 2 or 3 variations but dozens.
I can see the benefiting in an integrated box for cable/sat, optical media (although can probably drop that), PVR and internet connectivity. An Apple version of this would be good. The biggest problem with either a box or a panel with the box included is the diversity of standards from the content providers; cable/sat providers and country specific broadcast standards. I'm not sure Apple is into building multiple versions of a product for international markets - they do have CDMA and GSM iPhones but with TV standards we are not talking 2 or 3 variations but dozens.
Here's a pre-iPad CNN article titled "Why Apple Tablet May Not Be the Gadget of the Future": http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/29/technology/tablet_computers
"Apple will likely need to charge around $800 for the device, analysts say..."
Who knows what price point Apple has in mind? Certainly not the analysts.
"Apple will likely need to charge around $800 for the device, analysts say..."
Who knows what price point Apple has in mind? Certainly not the analysts.
Hold up...
Why does it have to be a full TV? Why can't they just make another upgrade/evolution to the current AppleTV box? Who's to say you can't do all those things that are being rumored by having an AppleTV box hooked up to a TV itself? Why not just introduce a new connecting standard for televisions that AppleTV can connect to? It already works with HDMI....would they even need to? Look at the iPod....they created it and now just about every new car comes with iPod integration. Who's to say that Apple wouldn't develop an "iTV" that is nothing more than an advanced version of the current AppleTV that connects to televisions either by HDMI (probably not likely) or with Thunderbolt, thereby forcing (eventually, and slowly) all new TVs to come with an Thunderbolt port akin to how most/all new cars come with iPod integration? It's the same concept. I can't see Apple trying to reinvent the TV market by making the full TV hardware and screen itself and branding it. They only need an advanced box to connect to a TV to deliver the content and use any current TV with the proper connections as a courier/display of the signal and nothing more.
Of course, who would have thought Apple would have bothered with a phone 12 years ago...
Why does it have to be a full TV? Why can't they just make another upgrade/evolution to the current AppleTV box? Who's to say you can't do all those things that are being rumored by having an AppleTV box hooked up to a TV itself? Why not just introduce a new connecting standard for televisions that AppleTV can connect to? It already works with HDMI....would they even need to? Look at the iPod....they created it and now just about every new car comes with iPod integration. Who's to say that Apple wouldn't develop an "iTV" that is nothing more than an advanced version of the current AppleTV that connects to televisions either by HDMI (probably not likely) or with Thunderbolt, thereby forcing (eventually, and slowly) all new TVs to come with an Thunderbolt port akin to how most/all new cars come with iPod integration? It's the same concept. I can't see Apple trying to reinvent the TV market by making the full TV hardware and screen itself and branding it. They only need an advanced box to connect to a TV to deliver the content and use any current TV with the proper connections as a courier/display of the signal and nothing more.
Of course, who would have thought Apple would have bothered with a phone 12 years ago...
Perhaps, an iTunes Match model applied to Movies, your whole 720p iTunes movie library is updated to 1080p via iCloud and can be downloaded locally to any of your Apple devices if so desired.
No one seems to have raised the idea that Apple might take an approach similar to the introduction of the iPhone and turn the current "carrier" model on its head by launching a revenue sharing and distribution deal with a national cable or satellite provider.
A lot of rubbish here
Twice the price - Rubbish! Apple wouldn't do that. They have a history of being very competitive, charging only slightly more, but providing much, much more bang for buck.
Traditional remote - Rubbish! This will be one of the main things they won't do. The traditional TV remote still looks like something that came out of the 80's. They will provide something like a simplified iPod Touch. No doubt.
Twice the price - Rubbish! Apple wouldn't do that. They have a history of being very competitive, charging only slightly more, but providing much, much more bang for buck.
Traditional remote - Rubbish! This will be one of the main things they won't do. The traditional TV remote still looks like something that came out of the 80's. They will provide something like a simplified iPod Touch. No doubt.
Let's hope they introduce 4K or even 8K resolution.
That'd justify double the price.
I have their original 2560x1600 30" cinema display, from 2003... one of the best investments I've ever made.. the high res is so worth it.
An additional possibility is to integrate a gaming system into the next Apple TV, something competitive with the upcoming generation of consoles. Games are huge content draws!
That'd justify double the price.
I have their original 2560x1600 30" cinema display, from 2003... one of the best investments I've ever made.. the high res is so worth it.
An additional possibility is to integrate a gaming system into the next Apple TV, something competitive with the upcoming generation of consoles. Games are huge content draws!
Double?
I doubt it. Apple is done with the premium price game. I think they proved that point with the iPad. The prices of all their stuff has only been coming down. No way Apple's going to try to peddle a $2000 TV.
I doubt it. Apple is done with the premium price game. I think they proved that point with the iPad. The prices of all their stuff has only been coming down. No way Apple's going to try to peddle a $2000 TV.
One other point I'll add...The only way I see Apple creating an actual television and charging a premium for it, is if it has something to offer beyond what a 'bring your own' TV paired with an ATV2/3 could offer. So it wouldn't be about features that an ATV3 could offer. It would have to be something new about the display itself. One idea already thrown out here is that upcoming 4k resolution standard. Except that where would you get the content for that? Movies (and even 1/2 hour TV shows) in that format would be *way* too big to stream over the internet. So I don't see that happening.
The only other possibility I can think of would be a TV in a different aspect ratio which shows your programming inside the 16:9 portion of the screen, and extra content/info outside of that. Personally, I'd consider that a long-shot idea, too.
So beyond that, my brain can't really think of much beyond those two ideas that would necessitate an actual Apple-branded television vs a set-top-box like a next-gen ATV2 paired with the television you already own. Yes, Apple could make more profit on an Apple-branded television, but there's also a lot more overhead and headache that comes with that. Those little mall stores aren't going to have as much room in the back to store a lot of 50"+ televisions, and if it breaks and you bring it back, then they've got to deal with more heavy boxes requiring expensive shipping costs to deal with.
The only other possibility I can think of would be a TV in a different aspect ratio which shows your programming inside the 16:9 portion of the screen, and extra content/info outside of that. Personally, I'd consider that a long-shot idea, too.
So beyond that, my brain can't really think of much beyond those two ideas that would necessitate an actual Apple-branded television vs a set-top-box like a next-gen ATV2 paired with the television you already own. Yes, Apple could make more profit on an Apple-branded television, but there's also a lot more overhead and headache that comes with that. Those little mall stores aren't going to have as much room in the back to store a lot of 50"+ televisions, and if it breaks and you bring it back, then they've got to deal with more heavy boxes requiring expensive shipping costs to deal with.
so wheres the killer feature?
I'm just not seeing integrated Apple TV or ipad powered anything being justification for buying. If they start their own cable company ( via the internet ) then I think I could see it happening, but only maybe...
I mean who wants to use Siri for TV? I just don't see this being useful.
If it had some sort of video-scan-your-body interface al la Xbox 360, where you could just point to the show you want or something that might be cool, but really I've been a tivo user for more than 10 years now and I know there's tons of value that can be added to the DVR+internet+ipad concept but not worth paying double and average TV.
I'm just not seeing integrated Apple TV or ipad powered anything being justification for buying. If they start their own cable company ( via the internet ) then I think I could see it happening, but only maybe...
I mean who wants to use Siri for TV? I just don't see this being useful.
If it had some sort of video-scan-your-body interface al la Xbox 360, where you could just point to the show you want or something that might be cool, but really I've been a tivo user for more than 10 years now and I know there's tons of value that can be added to the DVR+internet+ipad concept but not worth paying double and average TV.
I can see the focus of this television being the ability to store and stream content to other iOS devices around the house. Start watching a movie on the tv and see the rest of it in your bed on an iPad. Also the reverse would be possible, as it is now with the current Apple TV; mirror any iOS device on the television screen.
8k? the human brain can't handle that kind of resolution.
You'd surely die.
I'm tired of the gimmicky, atari ripoff games that are drowning app markets.
For the next gen, they should use those controllers you activate with your mind. Then it could really feel like you aren't in control. Where everything just sort of happens and the game could continue on just fine without you....You know, like every Madden game ever made.
I, personally don't want it to be a tv at all. Rather, a big portable Virtual Boy fully interactable 3d environment.
And i'd rather it not be a Virtual Boy stupid goggle system, rather, contacts featuring fully adjustable augmented reality, night, and thermo vision.
They also fire lasers, but that won't be until the iEye 2.
Completely agree. I paid over $3K for a 52" several years ago, for the image quality.
It sits on "HDMI 1" input, none of the other inputs (even OTA TV) are connected to the TV set. Its speakers are disabled - its only control is power-on/power-off.
Everything goes through the AV cross-bar switch, which upconverts video (with high-end converters) as necessary, up converts audio to 6.1 as necessary, and sends signals to remote systems in the kitchen, bedrooms and office.
The OTA HD RF signal goes to the TiVo for when we want very high quality broadcast TV. The Comcast cable goes to the dual CableCard on the TiVo. The Comcast cable box was powered off a few years ago - it isn't in any signal path.
So yes - the TV screen should be a dumb commodity panel that the user chooses to fit her viewing space. Apple would be crazy to try to compete in the big screen panel display business - stick with an ATV-like box that drives a panel or projector purchased from someone else.
Exactly what I just said.
YMMV - my first one worked fine from the start.
Without content - a waste. Why would you want to upscale Itunes horribly over-compressed 720p content to 8K?
The first problem to solve is delivering honest 1080p content. (By "honest" I mean BD-quality 1080p in the 20-50 Mbps bandwidth range. And "BD-quality" means the bitstream from the BD, not a recompressed "net optimized" version of the BD.)
After the 1080p content delivery issue is resolved, and *only after* the 1080p content delivery issue is resolved, 4K and 8K can be brought to the table. And then with 4K/8K on the table, we can discuss the problem of using your entire month's bandwidth quota for the first 30 minutes of the movie.
Last edited:
Yes, I have a 60" Pioneer Elite plasma and it's one of the best pictures I ever seem in my life. Apple to make me buy a new set will have to come up with something much better. Sorry, some new gimmicks won't get me.
Just focus on a incredible ATV box and new content distribution model. That will be a winner.
crappy speculation, it doesn't even speculate on a definite level.
for instance. what does twice the price mean? as it is tv prices are really variable, from the $300 40" dynex piece of crap at bestbuy, to the $500 40" so/so vizio, to the good $600-$700 samsung/sony, or the cream of the creap (within same size) 40" tv at near $1,000 (e.g. LED, etc.) So as it is, the current market has a very very wide price range, meaning saying "twice the price" is meaningless. as it could be twice the minimum price? twice the median price? twice the average price? or twice the highest price?. In addition if apple intend to revolutionize the tv market they will obviously incorporate a whole bunch onf new features, effectively making a completely new product. for instance the original iphone was like 20x more expensive than an average normal phone, it follows that if said new tv set so much better than a regular tv set as the orig iphone was to a reg phone 2x the price is not even asking much. Obviously i dont know whats gonna happen, but i think saying "i will not buy", "its a mistake" for speculated price that is not even specific (again twice what? average, max price? min price?) is just pointless.
In my opinion they will bring 2 tvs, (I seriously doubt they will have all the 40/42/46/50/52/55/57 inches as most other companies have) in the 40" and 46" sizes and they will be about 30-50% more expensive than a similarly sized high end set (e.g. samsung LED) making them basically the most expensive in the market but not in a whole new price scale. That offcourse depends on what they actually do bring, if they show up with a 2mm thick LED retina IPS display that need not cable boxes and have all the components of a mini computer (iphone/apple tv components) then all bets are off
for instance. what does twice the price mean? as it is tv prices are really variable, from the $300 40" dynex piece of crap at bestbuy, to the $500 40" so/so vizio, to the good $600-$700 samsung/sony, or the cream of the creap (within same size) 40" tv at near $1,000 (e.g. LED, etc.) So as it is, the current market has a very very wide price range, meaning saying "twice the price" is meaningless. as it could be twice the minimum price? twice the median price? twice the average price? or twice the highest price?. In addition if apple intend to revolutionize the tv market they will obviously incorporate a whole bunch onf new features, effectively making a completely new product. for instance the original iphone was like 20x more expensive than an average normal phone, it follows that if said new tv set so much better than a regular tv set as the orig iphone was to a reg phone 2x the price is not even asking much. Obviously i dont know whats gonna happen, but i think saying "i will not buy", "its a mistake" for speculated price that is not even specific (again twice what? average, max price? min price?) is just pointless.
In my opinion they will bring 2 tvs, (I seriously doubt they will have all the 40/42/46/50/52/55/57 inches as most other companies have) in the 40" and 46" sizes and they will be about 30-50% more expensive than a similarly sized high end set (e.g. samsung LED) making them basically the most expensive in the market but not in a whole new price scale. That offcourse depends on what they actually do bring, if they show up with a 2mm thick LED retina IPS display that need not cable boxes and have all the components of a mini computer (iphone/apple tv components) then all bets are off
That is something in which I'd be interested if the price is LESS that what I pay now to watch what I want (I can never see that happening as the media companies will never allow it -- and Apple has no leverage to make it happen). I am tired of paying $$$$ to the cable company for a suite of channels I never watch. I would love to be able to pick and choose to what I want to subscribe and have the price clearly displayed during the selection. But I don't want to be a 2nd class TV citizen: give me the programming at the same time everyone else sees it.
I think a TV with voice commands is a bust. My TV watching typically involves 4 devices: TV, cable box/DVR, Blu-ray player, and stereo receiver/surround decoder. I need to control it all, not just the TV. Logitech already makes a line of smart, programmable remotes that make the operation much simpler for $100 (press one button to turn it all on and set the inputs appropriately). Why do I want to pay double for a TV that won't integrate as well with everything else?
I also don't see how a CableCard interface is gonna work because you don't get the cable systems' Guide with it. Apple would have to team with a 3rd party to deliver detailed programming guides in order to automate channel/program selection and recording.
---
Michael Mc
An Apple branded TV makes no sense to me. I just want an upgraded Apple TV. The set top box and the screen should always be separate units - displays are expensive, but display technology doesn't advance fast enough to need frequent upgrading while set top boxes evolve rapidly but are cheap enough to replace often (ATV for $100 versus large HDTV easily $1000).
For $100, ATV is just about there. It only needs a few tweeks, hopefully coming soon; A5, 1080p, Bluetooth, iOS5, Thunderbolt, App store. And dang it, a DVR already. But if they allow third party apps and give it an interface with input capability like Thunderbolt, third parties could easily create DVR for it. And they need to give iOS an option to work with a remote pointing device like OSX.
If they'd also add a file management app to iOS (just port Finder already, which iPad needs anyway), it would be a pretty decent computer for $100.
Do all that, and I'd buy one for every room in my house.
For $100, ATV is just about there. It only needs a few tweeks, hopefully coming soon; A5, 1080p, Bluetooth, iOS5, Thunderbolt, App store. And dang it, a DVR already. But if they allow third party apps and give it an interface with input capability like Thunderbolt, third parties could easily create DVR for it. And they need to give iOS an option to work with a remote pointing device like OSX.
If they'd also add a file management app to iOS (just port Finder already, which iPad needs anyway), it would be a pretty decent computer for $100.
Do all that, and I'd buy one for every room in my house.