Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DigiTimes Lends Credence To Apple-Branded TVs For 2012

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the they-deny-deny-deny-then-ship dept.

Television 232

It's a rumor that goes back years (here's one example from this summer) that Apple is planning to produce dedicated TV sets branded with its own name; the main question seems to be when. DigiTimes (hat tip to CNet) is reporting that component-maker sources say that Apple has begun the process by ordering parts that hint at an offering next year of Apple TV sets (as opposed to Apple TV) in 32" and 37".

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Indeed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504318)

The sandwich that never knew bread is upon is! Yet, at the very same time, it is not revealed to the likes of you.

Sorry I came to the garbage of this place and realized it.

Oh good (2, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504342)

A tv that will cost twice as much as the next overpriced Sony and only lets you watch content approved by Apple. Oh and it will also use proprietary connectors so you can only connect it to other Apple devices.

I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iTv.

Re:Oh good (1, Troll)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504376)

Well, none of that applies to Apple's other devices (apart from apps for the iOS devices), where you can watch whatever content you like, and they cost far less than twice their competitor's price as you suggest. But haters gonna hate.

The problem is, what will they call it? They already have a product called Apple TV...

Re:Oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504412)

As my 6th grade math teacher would always say "A hit dog will bark."

Re:Oh good (2, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504442)

Hell yeah I'm gonna hate. These days Microsoft is no longer the big evil corp that everyone loves to hate. Apple has done way worse things than Microsoft these past few years. How about the shell company they set up in order to sue EVERY cell phone manufacturer over patents? Apple has sued bloggers who simply make predictions about new products. The G4 cube incident comes to mind.

Re:Oh good (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504512)

Apple has engaged in sleazy business practices, just like their competitors. Apple has turned out some dud products, just like their competitors.

That said, do you truly believe Apple is stupid enough to turn out a product so obviously DOA in the TV market? From your original post: "...only lets you watch content approved by Apple"

Re:Oh good (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504604)

Yes, I truly believe Apple would do that. They make big, big bucks selling $50 adapters that cost $.03 to make. I would not be surprised at all if this thing came with a few HDMI ports and necessitated dongles and adapters for everything else. You know, in the interests of "simplicity" and "clean design".

Re:Oh good (1)

Cogneato (600584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504942)

Have you ever been to Best Buy? Apple is not the only company that sells over priced adaptors. In fact, look around you... aside from the electronics, chances are that a majority of everything on your desk and that you wearing was produced for a tiny fraction of what you paid for it (when you don't include the cost of executives and ad agencies).

As much as commenters on /. would like to think otherwise, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on evil. I know that reality can be hard to discern when you spend all your time being dizzy from rolling your eyes.

Re:Oh good (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505118)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on evil.

Obviously not. However, that still doesn't excuse it. The "everyone else does it!!" excuse stopped being acceptable when I was in grade school...

Re:Oh good (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504772)

Entire tablet market was DOA before Apple made the iPad... all they need is a selling point for the loyal customer base and a "wow factor" for the rest of the consumers and this will too be the next big thing. How about integrated Apple TV as we currently know it, direct connectivity to iTunes/Cloud content and complete wireless synchronization to the rest of your Apple devices... then throw-in kinect-like motion control and Siri-like voice commands and you've got yourself a newsmaker. They can do it, wouldn't be the first time.

P.S. This is not a "fanboy" post. I do not like Apple, their dastardly marketing and competitive practices and their limited functionality products, but you have to give it to them - they can pull off releasing a product into a DOA market.

Re:Oh good (1)

Ayanami_R (1725178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505160)

What does the buyer do when the guts of the TV are outdated in 2-4 years? buy another one? Unless the guts are replaceable, or people start buying tv's every 4ish years, this won't work.

Re:Oh good (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505390)

Same thing consumers of other TVs do now. How long do you think Samsung/Sony/Panasonic etc is going to support their TV with Internet apps? I would think that past 1 year there may not be much support. With Apple you may get upgrades for a few years. The core of TV functionality won't change and won't need to be replaced unless the consumer really wants to buy another set. Because of this, TV manufacturers are hurting right now because no one is really replacing their 2-4 year models for the latest and greatest in 3D.

Re:Oh good (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504800)

Um, gotta disagree. Microsoft is still the big evil corp that everyone loves to hate. It's not like Microsoft started giving away puppies with Windows phones last year. What Apple is proving is that there's room for more than one entity in that category.

Re:Oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504912)

How about the shell company they set up in order to sue EVERY cell phone manufacturer over patents?

This is typical Apple, can't be original. MS did this first with SCO, and then Apple copies it and refines it a bit.

Re:Oh good (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504706)

Obviously, it will be the next generation of Apple TV, Apple TV S, where S stands for Screen. That, or these parts could be for a 32" and 37" iMac, perhaps with a TV tuner built in?

On a separate note, anybody else find it ironic that Apple gets Samsung to make parts for these, considering the competition (and subsequent patent war) they have in the smartphone and tablet market?

Re:Oh good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38505322)

Also, if you're using a damned hippie format like .ogg or .flac, you can go fuck yourself.

I think you went a little too far there.

Re:Oh good (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505520)

Haven't you ever seen his TV show? Archie Bunker hates everyone.

Re:Oh good (2)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504410)

I've got an AppleTV.

It connects to my (tomato firmware-running) wifi router via industry-standard 802.11n

It connects to my (Panasonic) TV via industry-standard HDMI

I use it to watch movies from the iTunes store and Netflix. I also use it to stream music from non-Apple sources and watch videos on YouTube.

I'm guessing no proprietary connectors for their TV set.

Re:Oh good (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504550)

Does it do MKVs with ASS/SRT subs too? If it does then I might replace my Xbox with one of them.

Re:Oh good (1)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504740)

Does it do MKVs with ASS/SRT subs too? If it does then I might replace my Xbox with one of them.

Mine does. I jailbroke it and installed XBMC for accessing my media library. It will happily play .mkv with subtitles and all the other stuff, then when I want the oficial stuff, I just exit out and go back to the AppleTV interface. It works a treat.

Re:Oh good (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504966)

Hmm, sure sounds tempting... I must admit that having to transcode just to get subtitles is a big pain. Does the Apple TV read large (>4GB) MP4s too?

Re:Oh good (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504802)

Oh yeah? Wanna bet that it will use Thunderbolt?

Re:Oh good (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504804)

Most likely, they'll have the effectively-proprietary Thunderbolt connector (while not 100% proprietary, it's currently only used on Macs, and I'd bet money that it will end up like Firewire - only extensively used by Macs, and not standard or common for PCs) as well as the standard HDMI.

It's even odds whether it will have the older standards - I can see Apple not including Composite Video and the like.

Re:Oh good (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504930)

Sure; but frankly, I don't think I've got composite on my current 50" plasma. I don't care.

HDMI, like it or not, is the standard for AV these days. If they support HDMI as well as Thunderbolt, I don't see how anyone can fault them for it.

Re:Oh good (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505456)

The Thunderbolt connector is a DisplayPort connector. DisplayPort is used by many companies like Dell. It is licensed by VESA. It is proprietary in the same way HDMI is proprietary. The latest Macs have the port doubling as a Thunderbolt which the owner of the Thunderbolt spec (Intel) endorses. Apple has chosen to do this but nothing stops others (like Dell) from doing the same. In fact Sony done exactly as you describe in that their iteration only works with other Sony products. Apple's version as far as I know works with anything that adheres to the Thunderbolt spec. Other manufacturers have started to manufacture products that use Thunderbolt.

Re:Oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504486)

I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iView FTFY

Re:Oh good (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504502)

I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iTv.

Good luck selling them in the UK then.

No, really, nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing Apple buy that drivel-spewing POS of a TV station lock, stock and barrel.

Re:Oh good (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504518)

Soon to follow: iCar, iHouse, iHood, iCity, iCounty, iState, and finally the United States of Apple.

Re:Oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504622)

Undivided State of Apple

Re:Oh good (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504642)

and finally The People's Republic of Apple®©.

Fixed.

Re:Oh good (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504990)

and finally The Democratic People's Republic of Apple®©.

Fixed your fix. Just remember that democratic republics usually aren't.

Re:Oh good (1)

programmerar (915654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505012)

...and finally the United States of Apple.

The Unibody of Apple

Re:Oh good (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504886)

I wonder if Samsung will sue Apple for producing a device that infringes on their large rectangular display used with a remote control.

Re:Oh good (1)

programmerar (915654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505038)

I wonder if Samsung will sue Apple for producing a device that infringes on their large rectangular display used with a remote control.

Rumor has it this device may not have a remote control (Siri instead) so no fun for Samsung this time either.

Re:Oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38505252)

I hope none of the users has a speech impediments then.

Re:Oh good (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504998)

And they'll probably drag up a design patent from 1921 that'll force Sony, LG and the rest to produce heptagonal TVs with screens that face the wall and razor blades on the corners.

wake me up when there's some info (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504360)

As the summary itself notes, these rumors go back years, so yet another iteration of the rumor, "this time for real", without any real info except some screen sizes, is not so exciting.

Re:wake me up when there's some info (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504938)

Agreed. It's in the same class as "the year of Linux on the desktop". Or the second coming. Or the end of the Mayan calendar.

I think what makes it news is that it captures the imagination, divided roughly into two groups:

The first group imagines a thin, trendy monitor for a substantial markup over other brands that do more, non-standard connectors, content from a sheltered garden to "preserve the user experience", and carefully timed miniscule improvements where users will be expected to dump their old TV and buy a new one on a yearly basis.

The second group expects pretty much the same, but they will consider it the greatest thing since Oxygen and will start camping at the Apple store three days in advance.

Why so small? (3, Interesting)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504380)

If they only sell 32" and 37" sets who is going to buy them? 32" is too small for even a bedroom, let alone watching the 'HD' media one would expect to be able to stream to one of these televisions. Also, if the rumours are true this television must have some significant features other than what can be achieved with an AppleTV + LCD. My guess is they will include an EPG and storage to record television shows to in addition to the AppleTV functionality. Then Apple will call it revolutionary and pretend like they came up with the idea to record to HDD. Not saying I don't like the idea of an Apple tv, just saying.

Re:Why so small? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504470)

Probably keeping it small to fit thier usual business practice: Offer people 10 year old hardware at 1.5X the cost of brand new gear.

Re:Why so small? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504480)

Even if it recorded, you would still have to watch it on a 32" TV. At that point you may as well just watch it on your phone. Perhaps this is a stunt to recover some of the huge chunks of marketshare lost to Android devices?

Watch out for the "record directly from TV to HDD without the use of a set top box" patent, coming to an industry near you in 2012.

Re:Why so small? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504522)

LOL I have a 12 inch in the bedroom hooked up to my mythtv system. As often heard (?) in the bedroom, its not the size that matters, but how you use it. I think 32 inches in the bedroom might be compensating for a another length measurement being a bit... shorter. Might be cheaper to put a loud stereo in it, or paint it red, or put some fancy rims on, instead of a giant TV. Either that or some people must live in 50 foot by 50 foot bedrooms.

How do "component-maker sources" know if its a TV or a really big imac (the model with the computer embedded into the monitor, my sister in law has one, holy cow those things are huge, 32 inches is not much of a stretch at making it even bigger).

Even if your LCD monitor PCB has an onboard ATSC receiver, how do they "know" its being used for an "Apple TV" running iOS as opposed to "the new imac, now with TV input" running plain ole OSX with a new "watch live tv" app...

36 inches is getting into the range where you could flip it upright, throw a glass tabletop on it, and call it the "Apple coffee table" or whatever. Which would actually be kind of cool for certain games (not tired old FPS, but card games, or words with friends, or ...).

I have a tropical fishtank 2 feet wide, I wonder if translated thru the marketing filters, 3 feet diagonally with bezel and such would be 24 inches wide to make the most amazing tropical fish screen saver ever.

Re:Why so small? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504634)

Where do you even get a 12 inch TV? Is it a CRT, or did you repurpose something pulled out of an old mini van or something? More importantly, do you really see someone's $150 32 inch TV and think "Oh wow, *somebody* is compensating for something!"?

So many questions.

Re:Why so small? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504780)

36 inches is getting into the range where you could flip it upright, throw a glass tabletop on it, and call it the "Apple coffee table" or whatever. Which would actually be kind of cool for certain games (not tired old FPS, but card games, or words with friends, or ...).

I've been pining for one of these things for years. Microsoft Surface 2 Demo [youtube.com]

Or, if you're into D&D... [youtube.com]

Re:Why so small? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504812)

/sigh.....html tag fail :(

Re:Why so small? (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504540)

My guess is that the information is true but the conclusions were wrong. Apple is ordering 32" and 37" display parts for their next generation of monitors not TVs.

Re:Why so small? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504988)

Bingo.

Re:Why so small? (1)

Mr.123 (661787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504600)

I used a 26" LCD TV for 8 years as my living room TV. Not everyone has the space to upgrade to a 55" TV. Especially not when living in Manhattan.

Re:Why so small? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505138)

Agreed. I don't think I could get a supersized TV through my door. My current set is 27", and it fits fine in my less-than-huge living room.

Re:Why so small? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38505422)

Agreed. I don't think I could get a supersized TV through my door.

So your doorway is less than 55inches tall? What kind of Lilliputian land do you live in? And no TV made in the last few years is more than 3-12 inches (DLP) thick.

Re:Why so small? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504608)

I agree that the sizes are too small for many applications, but I have a 32" in my bedroom that's just fine -- it's mounted perfectly dead-center on the bed, high enough you can lay in bed and see it fine. As it is with TVs, the next size up seems more attractive, but the bedroom isn't huge and a 42" or larger would get in the way.

Overall, though, I think Apple would want some of the living room market. My living room TV (Sony Grand Wega, 42", LCD rear projection, circa 2003) IS too small and I don't think anything under 60" sounds at all appealing for the space (which is far from huge). I really don't consider myself a videophile and the set that interests me most is the 70" Sharp I see every time I walk in the door at Costco.

Re:Why so small? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505122)

but I have a 32" in my bedroom that's just fine -- it's mounted perfectly dead-center on the bed,

So many snarky thoughts.

So little time.....

Re:Why so small? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504626)

32" too small for a bedroom? What?

The TV in my bedroom is a tad over 20" and isn't HD. In my living room the TV is 40" and I think that's huge. When I go to friends' houses and they're watching stuff on their 50"+ TVs, I have to step back as far as possible to see the entire scene at once.

When I was a kid, a 30" TV was considered ginormous. While I'm sure it would probably be in Apple's best interest to sell larger models, I don't understand your complaint that a 32" TV is too small for a bedroom. Do you have have eyesight problems?

Re:Why so small? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504648)

Price points most likely.

Not sure how much markup Apple thinks it can get, the 46 and below market is very saturated and Apple is going to have to work hard to make people believe that TV can be different. Different enough to matter.

Considering the slew of voice activated TVs coming next year I am not sure where Apple thinks it can differentiate or offer value while holding a profit.

I certainly would not feel the need to pay more to use my TV, I know how to use a remote and I really heading towards consuming most of my content via the computer. I would assume they will try to move that interaction people are just starting with their computers for consuming content back to their TV.

What I do want I do not necessarily want built in my TV, that being the ability to record the shows I want to watch when I want. I do not need "extra" hardware in there that may only just break. They could alleviate some of that with a SSD based DVR but the costs would be prohibitive the screen sizes given. There just isn't enough slack to have a premium brand, even Apple's name.

Now, get into the 60+ realm and you hit people with more money and some are more concerned with perception than value. You could sell them anything in aluminum with a logo on it.

Re:Why so small? (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505188)

I disagree about the 60"+ market. If Apple is making a TV, they are smart to focus on the mid-sized sets.

People who buy big screens care a lot about picture quality and stuff like 120Hz, 3D, etc... more than they do about apps and such. They probably have home theater components and don't really care about an iOS device built into a TV set. To them that kind of functionality belongs in a box, not in the display.

Not to mention large displays have the whole plasma vs. CCFL LCD vs LED LCD debate ... each has distinct pluses and minuses and Apple isn't going to go there. Apple would pick one type of display, probably LED LCD as it is the most green, and lose at least half the potential market in doing so.

Apple has the potential to do something really different with TV if they stick to sizes where the consumers aren't going to be too picky about the display part of it.

Re:Why so small? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504716)

Speak for yourself. My first LCD (a 32" Samsung) now resides in my bedroom and it's just fine (people still think it's overkill a lot of the time).

Besides, it's not like I'm in there watching full 1080p with 7.1 surround and all that crap, I'll go in the living room and my 60" if I want to do that. The bedroom TV is for watching CNN in the morning as I'm getting ready for work or a movie at night to fall asleep to. Who the hell wants to be in their bedroom for a long period of time watching TV?

Re:Why so small? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504776)

Who the hell wants to be in their bedroom for a long period of time watching TV?

X rated answer : "Adult" movies?

G rated answer : I was sick as a dog with the flu a year ago and I think a nice comfy bed with a TV was just about right for a day or two... Then I graduated to the couch in the living room with a blankie, etc. I think it took a week to regain full energy level.

Re:Why so small? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504866)

X rated answer : "Adult" movies?

People still buy porn? I thought the web had pretty much taken that entire market over...

Re:Why so small? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505020)

No matter how you get your porn you still have to watch it on something. I'd like to see wireless display mirroring between my TV and my laptop, not just for porn though.

Re:Why so small? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504962)

It's small for a TV but large for a monitor. You have to consider the marketplace. a 32" tv is the perfect size for a lonely fanboi in a studio apartment.

Re:Why so small? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505186)

When I grew up we had a 19" RCA. One christmas we got a huge 32" TV. I got the 19" RCA and used it in my teenage years. As far as I know the thing still works.

Typical slashdot (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505360)

32" is too small for even a bedroom

Yet another virgin slashdotter who watches way too much porn.

32 and 37 inch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504400)

Are these geared toward children's playrooms or something?

Re:32 and 37 inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504838)

If the quality of the screen is up to par with the screen on a 27in iMac then who the hell cares about the size.
Many of the 'big' screens sold today are really crap quality. Their resolution is often far less than a comparable PC monitor.

Just try displaying your PC screen on your 40 or 50in TV. Then you will see what I mean.

Funny that for decades we managed without 40inchers everywhere.
I have a 32in TV in my house. Yeah 1 TV. It has a really good screen. 1920x1080 and does display my PC screen very nicely.
My cousins 50in screen is crap even though it is nominally 1080p but it is more like 1080i.

The ball is in Apple's court. If they can come up with a TV that somehow redefines the TV as we know it then well done to them.
This is not condoning their sue first attitude recently but I do think that even the most rabid anti apple android fanboi has to tip their hat to Apple in a small way for shaking up whichever industry they decide to enter.

Re:32 and 37 inch? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504840)

yep

cable boxes/DVR's are $10 - $15 per month for each one. apple TV with built in youtube and netflix will be a big money saver for a lot of people

Steve said the TV market is hard (3, Insightful)

pdxer (2520686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504426)

At his last All Things Digital [youtube.com] (fast forward to 1:31:30 or so), Steve Jobs said that the TV market was hard because the hardware was subsidized, which prevented doing anything interesting. The set-top box from your cable company is "good enough", it's free (at least, you think it is), and enough people won't spend money for a wow-cool interface to allow someone like Apple to make money. He referred to Apple TV as a hobbyist product.

So it sounds like the strategy now is to make the whole TV and not just a set-top box. I'm curious what that is going to bring. Sure, it'll be a nice set and maybe the interface will be better than the typical clunky "navigate a menu without a mouse" things. But so much of what's controlled on the TV is controlled outside of it - i.e., through my Dish/Cable/etc. carrier's box.

Will iTV replace those boxes? Is this a sort of androidy model where Apple provides everything those carriers do and then says to the carriers, why keep building your own set-top boxes when iTV can do that for you?

If it's just a nice TV with a better interface for adjusting the brightness, I can't imagine anyone getting excited, so there must be something more...speculations, please.

Re:Steve said the TV market is hard (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504586)

Steve Jobs said ...

... a lot of trash talking about the tablet market pretty much right up to the ipad release party.

Its a characteristic "apple" thing that they harder they trash talk something the more likely it seems they are to release it. I think part of it is misdirection, and a lot is management of anticipation, oh steve says its gonna suck, oh look, its actually not too bad, those guys must be geniuses.

If you can get an apple exec to categorically state there is no way they'll release a TV, that guarantees that in a couple months they'll release apple iTV...

Re:Steve said the TV market is hard (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504664)

Steve was talking about the Apple TV product they already had any why it wasn't incredibly successful not an actual iTV...

Re:Steve said the TV market is hard (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504698)

speculations, please.

I will speculate that the thing won't be called an iTV [itv.com] ... if Apple wants to sell it in the UK, that is.

Who will they sue? (2, Insightful)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504472)

There already plenty of televisions that are black with rounded corners. Who will they sue?

Phillip.

Re:Who will they sue? (1)

Charmonium (2441996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504560)

Actually, I guess it's the other way. Samsung being an already established TV manufacturer, can sue Apple with it's TV related patents as Tit-for-tat for blocking the sale of Galaxy tabs.

Re:Who will they sue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504616)

I don't know who Apple will sue, but Phillips will sue you.

Re:Who will they sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38505182)

How is this shit 'insightful'?

At best it's a limited and already very dated attempt at humour.

Prediction (1)

Mr.123 (661787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504520)

My prediction

* Runs any of the 500,000 apps in the App Store w/ iPhone/iPod/iPad as controller.
* AirPlay becomes more fluid, maybe uses new Bluetooth chips in the 4S (currently uses wifi and can be extremely laggy depending on your home wifi setup).
* Opens up new API that allows apps to overlay menu/images over TV signal (Don't like ESPN's stats on the game? Download XYZ app w/ real time stats + chat.)
* Allows Siri on iPhone 4S to control the TV, setup DVR times, search through recordings, etc.
* Announces a deal w/ TWC/Comcast/Verizon/etc to replace their cable boxes reducing my number of remotes from 3 to 1 (or 0 if I can use my iPhone).

Re:Prediction (2)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504750)

But can't Apple do all those things without the display? A third generation Apple TV could conceivably handle all of that.

Comcast would never cooperate! (2)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504774)

Comcast is in the content (NBC) and distribution (cable, broadcast) business. Like every other cable provider, they see their proprietary box as both lock-in device (cheap, inhibits cable piracy), a strategic advantage (enables end-end Layer2/3 network management) and a business advantage (rental income exceeds costs, provides high-dollar, high-resolution viewing data for internal use and sale to third parties, complete with detailed and accurate demographics, likely to include credit info/SSN).

Now WHY ON EARTH would they cede this to Apple?

Unlike the cell phone business, there's no cable competition -- they can't work Comcast against TWC against VZW. They found a weak and willing partner in AT&T for their phone strategy, but a weak and willing cable partner is a small-time regional player that prevents a national distribution strategy.

As a standalone device, capable of cablecard, maybe it would stand a chance, especially if it came with some kind of "bypass cable TV option" that gave you access to cable programming via download/Apple store at some kind of competitive subscription pricing.

Re:Comcast would never cooperate! (1)

Mr.123 (661787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505100)

Yeah, I know it's unlikely, but if Apple or anyone else can pull it off, it'd be a huge reason for me to buy a new TV. The cable boxes are old, slow, and clunky. I was indeed thinking of a similar launch strategy as the iPhone. Maybe they can bring the satellite companies into play as well.

Re:Prediction (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504850)

*You'll have to wait for the next version for the channel switching functionality, but it will also add a ham radio so it's ok :)

What a steal! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504536)

I'm sure it will all be for the low, low price of $3000 for the 32", $3500 for the 37".

I don't think they should to get involved in this market. Most people already go buy whatever cheap piece of crap Walmart TV they can find. You can get a 32" right now at Walmart.com for $200. [walmart.com]

Then again, people have shown their desire to throw money at Apple before...

Re:What a steal! (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504718)

Maybe thats why they should do it.

Early adopter and tech guys all "know" that multi foot long TVs are supposed to be thousands of dollars. I simply left the market up until recently, there's no way I'm spending a "used car" on a tv. Ignored the market, was shocked recently at how cheap TVs have gotten. Almost cheaper than a physical window. We're very close to the point that from a materials and energy cost standpoint for it to be cheaper to install a 40-something inch TV in portrait mode and a webcam sideways outdoors and call it a "iWindow" or something like that.

Of course my recently purchased 42 inch TV was only a couple hundred bucks, not several thousand, and I'm probably the last guy in the US to have upgraded from CRT to LCD, so it might already be too late to "convince" people that big TVs are still $3000, including the new iTV?

Re:What a steal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38504738)

You know you're not supposed to go full retard.

Touchscreen? (2)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504598)

Make it 3D and give it a touchscreen.... I want to watch people flailing trying to grab that damn angry bird on their 55" TV and careen right through their coffee table.

Re:Touchscreen? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504744)

Vertical touchscreens make you want to rip your arm off within 10 minutes.

Re:Touchscreen? (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504878)

Didn't you see, it will be only 32"/37" - patented flailing-reducing technology

Not likely (1)

tji (74570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504684)

Apple is not going to enter a market that is already in an aggressive price reduction war. Just look back at their same reasoning for not messing with Netbooks. If they can come in with a way to redefine the market, they would do that. But, not a "me too" television. Many/most other TVs have competitors to TV + Apple TV. Most suck, but they are still close enough to not allow Apple to price the TVs how they want, meaning they won't get in the market.

In the past, I thought they might do a next-gen Apple TV with integrated HD DVR. But, that's another fully saturated market bundled with cable/satellite services. Tivo has been unsuccessful in exploiting that market, so Apple will probably not go there. They could do iOS integrations, like auto-converting content to iPod/iPad/Mac friendly format. But, that would compete with iTMS purchased content. So, it's a no-go.

So, I think that this, like most Apple rumors, is rubbish. It's just someone's "how can I drive traffic to my www site? I'll make up the next possible step for existing apple technology."

Re:Not likely (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505432)

The 'untapped' TV market is simplicity. It's hard to integrate all of the potential choices for TV input (cable, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Blockbuster, DirectTV, Over the Air, DVD, BlueTooth, PirateBay etc) without setting up some complicated 'Home media server' and a remote with three thousand buttons.

It really surprises me how bad the TV manufacturers do at this. I have a 2 year old Samsung 42" - not a bad screen but the interface just absolutely sucks. Yet another 500 button remote with Tiny Little Letters and a few new icons (still haven't figured out the purple button with 2 dots and something vaguely resembling a triangle). The stupid thing can't even remember what it was last hooked to.

Come up with a generic way of doing this and you're rich. Of course, it it was easy, it would have been done already. For the reasons amply detailed in this and thousands of other posts it is quite a technologic and social challenge. Personally, I don't see Apple solving it - I don't thing anyone really can because of the inherent Balkanisation of the 'TV experience" but perhaps Steve has a better perspective on things from the Other Side.

Apple makes a lot of great products (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504704)

It's too bad they're afraid to rely on the quality of their products instead of abusing the patent system to blockade competition.

Mac Mini with EyeTV (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504852)

I used to run my TV using a Mac Mini with EyeTV so I could watch and record TV. It was awful, very unstable, crashed often, and required a CS degree in order to understand how to record a series. If Apple is coming out with a TV, they need something much much much better then EyeTV.

Re:Mac Mini with EyeTV (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505310)

I used to run my TV using a Mac Mini with EyeTV so I could watch and record TV. It was awful, very unstable, crashed often, and required a CS degree in order to understand how to record a series. If Apple is coming out with a TV, they need something much much much better then EyeTV.

Um... so you're angry with Apple, because a third party vendor had crappy software? Maybe that's why Apple is thinking about getting in the market. The current offerings are kind of crappy.

Re:Mac Mini with EyeTV (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505318)

There is. It's called Windows Media Center. Or TiVo. Or your cable/satellite box.

Point is there's not a lot of room for innovation in the DVR market. If Apple's TV is somehow different from the Apple TV we have now, it will be via something like Google TV... it will interact with whatever content is coming from your TV provider.

So does this mean that television... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504952)

...is about to become fashionable again?

In related news (0)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38504958)

Another tech industry giant Nintendo has announced they too will be entering the TV space with their line of flat panel tuners. They are dubbing their TV line Cii (pronounced see). The sets will only be capable of 480p but Nintendo is confident their revolutionary remote control is the key to selling more units not resolution.

No need for a tuner (1)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505036)

With Apple being early to add USB and drop the floppy I could see them dropping the tuner altogether. I haven't used a tuner in a TV since 1993 ( bought a monitor only then )
When there was the big switch in the US from analog to digital TV the numbers mentioned for people who get their television OTA was ~ 10%. That means that 90% of the TV buyers have no need for a tuner. Connecting to a cable or satellite box isn't using the ATSC tuner at all. Maybe Apple could leverage their iTunes deals for a streaming package that can compete with cable/satellite.

Considering they make money on the content the pricing could be no different than a conventional TV. Apple would be happy to have everyone overestimating the pricing only to announce it at half the price of the estimates.

The only tuner that might make sense would be for wireless HD of some sort. Then you can beam video, audio or other content to it w/o wiring.

I'm an Apple Fan... (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505096)

and man, if 32 and 37 are their options, the software had better be very compelling. Although there is a TON of room for improvement in TV software. And I guess the apple TV plus your 50" plasma is always an option for bigger screen size.

Of course I should also admit that I've never owned a TV and do not foresee one in my future.

They would be way too big.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38505306)

to use as a tablet. The biggest TV tablet I would want would be 19".

32" and 37" (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505356)

These can't be TV's -- more likely a new cycle of Cinema Display that has TV-like component inputs for better media integration. Really, why would Apple start selling TVs that are just TVs when brands like Sony can't turn a profit and why at such pathetic form factors as 32" and 37" when you can get a Sony Bravia 40" 3D LCD with built-in internet for $2 less than a 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display? So no -- I highly doubt this "Apple TV-set" is what they think it will be and will more than likely be nothing but a next-gen Thunderbolt/Cinema Display that allows you to jack in your PVR and other set-tup boxes to offer media convergence to your desktop and allow Apple to maintain their price-point on their Desktop Displays, which is presently looking quite overpriced.

Seems like a bad idea.... (2)

Tangential (266113) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505402)

TV sets are an incredibly slim margin market. Plus, they aren't going to be able to easily compete with larger set sizes and probably wouldn't want to. The distribution channel for larger devices in very high volumes is very different than for a handful of 27" iMacs and monitors as well

Instead, Apple could leverage their current position and just enhance the user experience with a nicer Apple TV (with video conferencing, camera, remote acess and other goodies thrown in.) They could even couple that with a centralized server and really low cost set top boxes at each set for a more consistent and compelling experience and even better margins. iOS games could also be integrated in.

It makes no sense for them to make sets.

Why do people believe DigiTimes? (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38505424)

DigiTimes is like the Chinese-language version of the National Enquirer for the tech industry. It's rarely right, but that doesn't stop people from continuing to pretend it has legitimacy or accuracy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?