No this is the rumor.
So did I. I thought people around here were smart enough to wait for the actual announcement from Apple before they start dissing things.
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.
Suppliers to Begin Preparing 32" and 37" Apple Television Sets in Early 2012?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No this is the rumor.
So did I. I thought people around here were smart enough to wait for the actual announcement from Apple before they start dissing things.
How come nobody is challenging Job's assertion that he figured out a way to control the the TV experience? Anyone who read the book knows that he would take other people's ideas and straight-faced claim them as his own, even patented them!
Only an advanced screen technology would make an actual Apple TV a good idea. Maybe OLED.
Only an advanced screen technology would make an actual Apple TV a good idea. Maybe OLED.
I fail to see what Apple would be able to provide over and above what can be done with an external device like the hockey puck Apple TV--except for design/form factor/display tech/etc. I'm sure they would make a beautiful looking TV. But at the end of the day, a TV is just a monitor. It's the software and what is sent to the TV that makes the difference.....so I hope they continue making the external Apple TV with the same software as what would be in the integrated Apple TV device. I just recently bought a $2500 TV and do not plan on buying another for quite some time.
My problem with Television isn't the screen.
It's the business model on the content side, and the awful companies behind it.
If I had Apples resources, I'd be laying the groundwork for a new TV content distribution model.
...and a new Internet. They can SOPA the old one to death. Oh look, it's the same people behind that mess too...
It's the business model on the content side, and the awful companies behind it.
If I had Apples resources, I'd be laying the groundwork for a new TV content distribution model.
...and a new Internet. They can SOPA the old one to death. Oh look, it's the same people behind that mess too...
That's true for secondary sets, but the average size sold as a primary set has been ever increasing, especially on the high end. I believe 55" is the size most sold as a primary set up from 50" just two years ago. The new Sharp Elite high end sets are only sold as a 60" and a 70". Just about two years ago, the most popular size at J&R, a leading NYC retailer, was 37". Today, the best-selling set is the Samsung 65" and the average of the top 10 sets is 47.7".
I agree with those who think Apple is keeping the size down to avoid sticker shock. Regardless of the functionality, I think it's going to be a hard sell because the added value won't make up for the price difference in most people's minds. Also, the regular TV set manufacturers drop their prices throughout the year, which Apple never does. So the top-of-the-line Sony 55XBR929 listed for about $3800 when first released, but now sells for as little as $2400. (It's also made in a 65"). The top-of-the-line Panasonic 55VT30 (also avail as a 65") originally listed for $2800, now lists for $2500 and now sells for around $2150. Prices will drop further on the 2011 models after the 2012 CES announcements in a few weeks. Pioneer tried to play only the high end with their Kuro line (which were absolutely the highest quality sets with the best picture you could buy, but were very expensive), but they got out of the TV business over two years ago, in spite of the accolades for their sets.
The New York Times today reported that the average selling price of HDTVs is under $500. I find that hard to believe, but prices are incredibly low.
If Apple attempts to sell a 37" set for $1995 (my prediction), they're going to fail. Let's remember that the iPhone was not a success in the U.S. until Apple worked out the subsidized deals with the carriers. They weren't selling very many at $500. I love Apple, but I wasn't spending $500 for a phone. At $200, I rushed to buy one.
Hummm.... I could see a 32", 46" and a 55 or 60".... but 32 and 37 inch would just not be enough size for me. I almost think they'd be better off making a smarter Apple TV box and transform any TV into an Apple driven TV.
But, as with many rumors... this is too early to call... so time to sit back and wait for more information.
But, as with many rumors... this is too early to call... so time to sit back and wait for more information.
First of all, if other people had such great ideas to improve the TV experience, where are they?
But even if other people do have great ideas, that doesn't matter. Regardless of mistakes made by the patent office, you can't patent an idea. You can only patent the implementation of the idea.
Especially when you combine current TVs with a sound system, Blu-ray, computer and other devices, the UIs are ridiculously horrible and the remote controls are even worse. I don't happen to believe that Apple will be able to solve it all, but Siri might be a nice start, if it works. That doesn't mean I think an Apple TV will be a success (see my other post).
That's because that is a very price sensitive market - I'd guess they are either bought by people who just want a second TV or by price sensitive shoppers. You aren'y going to get them to buy an expensive model because it's simply not what they are looking for in a TV.
Because everyone wants 60" sets in their bedroom.Also not everyones wants a TV dominating their living room. But I really think the market will be high end TVs as a second TV or dorm rooms, lofts, apartments, or those whose life doesn't center around a TV.
Maybe - but I wonder about the size of the market - especially for dorm rooms - many parents already are strapped for cash when the kids go to college, a TV is low on the priority list at that point.
----------
The content side is where the money is - and where the fight will be if Apple tries to do anything but bring a better TV that plays by the existing model. To change the business model they need lots of eyeballs - content providers aren't going to risk their deals with cable networks to push for a new model that they don't know, can't control, and may make them less money.
103" Panasonic
I kind of liked the Panasonic 103PF9K I saw in France, although the 68,900 was a little too steep for me.
I kind of liked the Panasonic 103PF9K I saw in France, although the 68,900 was a little too steep for me.
Looking at my current den, I have an LCD hooked to an AV receiver, which in turn is hooked up to the AppleTV, DVR, and game systems. If the Apple-branded television cannot duplicate this functionality by allowing multiple sources to use it as a display, then it seems rather pointless.
On a side note, a 32" Apple-branded TV would work fine in my oldest son's room. He has cerebral palsy and uses his laptop by typing with one finger. Siri has been a game-changer, for him, allowing him to text with ease. A TV with similar functionality would be just the thing, for him.
On a side note, a 32" Apple-branded TV would work fine in my oldest son's room. He has cerebral palsy and uses his laptop by typing with one finger. Siri has been a game-changer, for him, allowing him to text with ease. A TV with similar functionality would be just the thing, for him.
It will be revolutionary. Remember, people don't know what they want until you show it to them.
they are going to sneak in to the market like the iphone, ipod and Mac's
extra cable boxes are $10 to $15. apple tv will have netflix built in. release a small TV for extra rooms to save money on the cable box and for manhattan people. build from the niche as people use it in ways you haven't expected.
nothing revolutionary
the big screens are the big profit makers for samsung and other and they will protect their TV business. the 32" screens are the scraps. in a few years no one will know what hit them
I cannot for a second imagine why Apple would get into the HDTV monitor market at all. The competing technologies (plasma, LCD, Mitsubishi's "laservue", etc.) all have their pluses and minuses, sizes are rapidly expanding, and price per inch of screen is plummeting. For a company that touts longevity with their products, recouping value via TCO, etc., coming out with a line of TVs that are guaranteed to be humbled by better options within months of release make no sense at all.
Coming up with a better way to control media systems, however, is the prize plum. Every friend or relative I have who has dumped a load of coin into a great multimedia set-up still faces frustration when trying to get the various components to work together easily. One utterly confusing universal remote isn't much of an improvement over several remotes. How many times has someone grabbed the remote from you and said "NO!! You'll screw everything up if you do it that way!" or "come over here and tell me what you did--help me put it back the way I had it!!"
If Apple can come up with a powerful black puck/box that ALL your components hook up to--video game console, DVD/BR player, surround sound audio, monitor/projector, and ancillary old-skool input devices (CD/phono/tape/VHS, whatever)--and then control them INTELLIGENTLY, INTUITIVELY, and in a way that more or less eliminates system screw-ups, they will crush the competition.
That's what the market needs more than anything, and I'll bet that's the nut that Jobs finally cracked before passing away. Applying Apple's genius for developing user-friendly interfaces and seamless, behind-the-scenes integration of various conventional technologies to create an enjoyable overall user experience is the PRIZE.
Isn't that why the original iPod utterly dominated the mp3 player market? Easy to use hardware with perfect hardware/software interaction with a host computer and iTunes? Certainly none of the tech inside an original iPod was substantially different than its competitors at the time of its release. The user experience itself was the key draw and selling point.
The control of it all is the thing. Surround sound systems will improve. TVs will get bigger, brighter, faster, with better color. Video game systems will get better. But if you can plug 'n' play new components into your Apple puck and run things perfectly out of the box, every time? That's it, baby.
Such a puck would be easy to sell at Apple's typical 35-40% margins, far easier than the components attached to it would be for their respective manufacturers. Heck, if I were dropping $5k on a decent home theater system, I wouldn't hesitate to spend another $200-300 or more on a hub that makes it all run flawlessly, every time, for everyone who tries to use my system.
But a 37" Apple branded TV? Why, why ,why, why, WHY?!?
Coming up with a better way to control media systems, however, is the prize plum. Every friend or relative I have who has dumped a load of coin into a great multimedia set-up still faces frustration when trying to get the various components to work together easily. One utterly confusing universal remote isn't much of an improvement over several remotes. How many times has someone grabbed the remote from you and said "NO!! You'll screw everything up if you do it that way!" or "come over here and tell me what you did--help me put it back the way I had it!!"
If Apple can come up with a powerful black puck/box that ALL your components hook up to--video game console, DVD/BR player, surround sound audio, monitor/projector, and ancillary old-skool input devices (CD/phono/tape/VHS, whatever)--and then control them INTELLIGENTLY, INTUITIVELY, and in a way that more or less eliminates system screw-ups, they will crush the competition.
That's what the market needs more than anything, and I'll bet that's the nut that Jobs finally cracked before passing away. Applying Apple's genius for developing user-friendly interfaces and seamless, behind-the-scenes integration of various conventional technologies to create an enjoyable overall user experience is the PRIZE.
Isn't that why the original iPod utterly dominated the mp3 player market? Easy to use hardware with perfect hardware/software interaction with a host computer and iTunes? Certainly none of the tech inside an original iPod was substantially different than its competitors at the time of its release. The user experience itself was the key draw and selling point.
The control of it all is the thing. Surround sound systems will improve. TVs will get bigger, brighter, faster, with better color. Video game systems will get better. But if you can plug 'n' play new components into your Apple puck and run things perfectly out of the box, every time? That's it, baby.
Such a puck would be easy to sell at Apple's typical 35-40% margins, far easier than the components attached to it would be for their respective manufacturers. Heck, if I were dropping $5k on a decent home theater system, I wouldn't hesitate to spend another $200-300 or more on a hub that makes it all run flawlessly, every time, for everyone who tries to use my system.
But a 37" Apple branded TV? Why, why ,why, why, WHY?!?
I just want a revised Apple TV mk. II that can output video at 1080p, supports apps at this resolution, and contains a beefier amount of storage.
Not if intended for a new iMac. Wasn't there a rumor floating around just a couple of weeks ago that Apple is bringing a TV functionality to the iMac...?
For all these Apple "experts" we have here, I am surprised everyone is only focused on the screen size. Apple releasing a TV makes sense because they like to have control over the entire user interface. With the set-top box they do not. There are three things I see as revolutionary that Apple would have to put together before they released a TV.
1) User interface greatly increased in usability. (Fontman already wrote enough about this and I agree with him that everything needs to work and be controlled together intuitively.)
2) Double resolution of current screens. Apple already uses their Retina displays for the iPhone and iPod Touch. iPad 3 is probably next. If they can double the resolution to 2160p, that would give them a major selling point over current TVs.
3) 3D built into the TV without needing glasses. This tech has been displayed and marketed already, but it is limited and expensive. If Apple has found a way around some of the limitations (eg: viewing angles) and a way to produce these for a more reasonable cost, they could add this to an Apple TV.
These three things would revolutionize the TV and they way we use it. Of course, Apple would have to find a cheaper way to produce these to make it affordable. Also, content agreements with cable/satellite providers would be a key piece of this.
1) User interface greatly increased in usability. (Fontman already wrote enough about this and I agree with him that everything needs to work and be controlled together intuitively.)
2) Double resolution of current screens. Apple already uses their Retina displays for the iPhone and iPod Touch. iPad 3 is probably next. If they can double the resolution to 2160p, that would give them a major selling point over current TVs.
3) 3D built into the TV without needing glasses. This tech has been displayed and marketed already, but it is limited and expensive. If Apple has found a way around some of the limitations (eg: viewing angles) and a way to produce these for a more reasonable cost, they could add this to an Apple TV.
These three things would revolutionize the TV and they way we use it. Of course, Apple would have to find a cheaper way to produce these to make it affordable. Also, content agreements with cable/satellite providers would be a key piece of this.
I still don't believe it, no matter how many rumors circulate. It will be an epic fail if they release an apple set. They'll sell a few, but they won't make an money or make a big impact. Doesn't seem like something appl would do, not on a large scale at least.
This sounds like new cinema displays that are also TV's.
Anybody that wants a new cinema display will be getting a full fledged television built-in.
Anybody that wants a new cinema display will be getting a full fledged television built-in.
Whenever the Apple Gods in Cupertino need a good laugh they just visit a few of these websites.
I love me some MacRumors but sometimes and we're just grasping for the sake of grasping.
I love me some MacRumors but sometimes and we're just grasping for the sake of grasping.
I was having trouble visualizing this idea but you might have got something here.
Content is what's most important to me right now. Cable with 200+ crappy channels is not worth it. I am willing to pay Apple if their content is consistent with their usual quality.
Content is what's most important to me right now. Cable with 200+ crappy channels is not worth it. I am willing to pay Apple if their content is consistent with their usual quality.