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!

Foxconn CEO Fuels iTV Rumors

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the I-want-my-iTV dept.

Businesses 153

An anonymous reader writes "Apple may soon begin production of a full-blown HDTV, dubbed iTV by Apple watchers, according to the Terry Gou, CEO of Apple's main hardware supplier Foxconn, in a brief interview with the newspaper China Daily. The newspaper reports that the device will feature 'aluminum construction, Siri, and FaceTime video calling' and will be manufactured by a 50-50 joint venture between Foxconn and the Japanese manufacturer Sharp; other details, including the schedule, were notably absent. Apple's spokesperson has declined comment. So it's not clear how solid this 'scoop' is."

cancel ×

153 comments

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

Not interested (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993965)

Sorry, not interested in a propritery iTV where I can only watch what Apple wants.

Re:Not interested (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994153)

Why on earth is this modded down? This is exactly what an iTV would be like!

Re:Not interested (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994459)

Because AppleTV has Netflix, Vimeo, Youtube already there?

Re:Not interested (1)

CrzyP (830102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994473)

And why go with Sharp? Why not Samsung? Their picture quality surpasses that of any Aquos set I've seen. Anyway, the only thing that will make the iTV a success is the ecosystem I assume Apple will integrate.

Re:Not interested (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994687)

It's usually more to do with the processing underneath than the panel itself. Samsung processing is mediocre at best, not even as good as Fujitsu Plasmavison or Pioneer panels from 5 years ago. Sharp have good panels, but poor DSP processing. Samsung have ok panels but better processing.

We no longer have high-end TVs on the market, so no excellent panels with excellent processing. Nobody has yet to beat Kuro [pioneerelectronics.com] and Aviamo [fujitsu-general.com] .

Re:Not interested (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994829)

Sharp is in the gutter with their lcd operation(read: not doing profit). Easily coerced into a big order - and easily accepting such a deal. it's standard apple procurement.

though they could just buy the panels and processing separately.

there's rumours about huge oled orders from samsung too.

Re:Not interested (1)

worf_mo (193770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995071)

And why go with Sharp?

My thoughts exactly. I bought a Sharp Aquos 40" LED about one and a half year ago. The picture quality is fine (it's a model with the quad pixel tech), but if Apple just wants good picture quality, they might get it cheaper from somewhere else; they don't need and most certainly don't want the steaming pile of dung of firmware/software that comes with Sharp, unless they plan on getting rid of their customers. As a consequence of owning a Sharp I have mostly stopped watching TV; that's fine by me, but probably not what the manufacturer intended (definitely no return business).

Re:Not interested (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994535)

Cool, Space 1999 used to come on ITV. Spandex and lasers.

Re:Not interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994569)

I did that math a few weeks ago, buying out Comcast would take $158 per subscriber per month for two years.It is the broadcasters and the cable companies that are really making TV suck. Hulu drives me bat-shit crazy ( I have to pay to watch ads? ) People bitch about socialism but a Co-op non-profit Comcast that let me buy a-la-crate channels and cost me COST would be pretty great.

Re:Not interested (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995127)

More like there would only be one size and one button. The remote will likely be an iPhone, iPad, or iTouch.

Re:Not interested (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995815)

I myself am waiting for Apple to produce the ASHDTV. Anyone can produce an HDTV. I am waiting Apple to integrate second amendment rights into this first amendment device.

www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993975)

try getting that domain back...

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994425)

With the total market cap if iTV being 3%-4% of Apple's current value - yes, I believe the can. If Zuck dropped $1E9 on instagram, i think Apple can do 3x that on a company with actual revenue.

Though it will probably be an Apple TV, not an iTV.

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994597)

Not to mention trademarked - I suspect Apple will pay them for that like they have for every other "original" brand they have come along with.

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994605)

What was that sound called on the Mac called, sosueme? Didn't the iphone trade mark belong to someone else once? Apple doesn't give a fuck.

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994667)

Didn't the iphone trade mark belong to someone else once?

Yes. It belonged to a company who had abandoned it for years, meaning it was legally up for grabs. As soon as Apple wanted it, that company falsified a renewal application with the USPTO. That stunt did not stick. The company, BTW, was Cisco.

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994777)

Money can buy a lot of things. Assuming the owners of itv.com don't get greedy or else the opportunity will be lost.

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995151)

...or they will just use another name.

Like iVid or iTel or iBigPad

Re:www.itv.com already exists suckers!!! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995563)

iSee

wrong, wrong, wrong (4, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993977)

It was not really an interview. It was a presentation to a group. And *none* of the other reporters present seem to have heard this alleged remark. More info here [cnn.com] .

It's already gone (2)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993981)

see http://www.itv.com/ [itv.com]
been a UK TV company since like forever

Re:It's already gone (1, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994021)

see http://www.itv.com/ [itv.com] been a UK TV company since like forever

That won't put Apple off. Remember Apple Corps v Apple Computer [wikipedia.org] . One thing that ITV will have learned though is not to do any deal allowing them "limited use".

Apple Corps is really gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994151)

Expect them to see it as homophobic if they can't call it ITV

That hasn't stopped Apple in the past. (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994065)

Apple is an expert at stealing other people's trademarks [zdnet.com] while simultaneously protecting their own.

Re:That hasn't stopped Apple in the past. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994883)

But would they really want to alienate 60m customers? Brits can be fiercely protective of their institutions, especially against large empires. They love nothing more than playing the role of David vs. Goliath.

Re:That hasn't stopped Apple in the past. (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995593)

Now's a good time to note that pretty much everyone *except* Apple has called it iTV.

Re:It's already gone (3, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994101)

The product is called Apple TV. Not iTV.

What the is new product is going to be called is anyones guess.

It is just a rumour though, so is this other story.

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-in-talks-to-buy-tv-manufacturer-loewe-1080128 [techradar.com]

Both contradictory rumours

Re:It's already gone (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994111)

Apple will argue that since it's a UK company, they should be using .co.uk and not .com. Apple's billions of dollars... err... "Justice Points" will surely help in any legal battle.

even then in the UK they can't call it iTV (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994169)

even then in the UK they can't call it iTV as that will be market confusion.

Re:even then in the UK they can't call it iTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994351)

Clearly, which is why Apple will subsequently argue that they should be given the iTV trademark in the UK as well.

Re:It's already gone (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994229)

Apple will argue that since it's a UK company, they should be using .co.uk and not .com. Apple's billions of dollars... err... "Justice Points" will surely help in any legal battle.

Wouldn't help against what is still a large company that's been openly and "notoriously" using the brand; it's their stock-ticker symbol for goodness' sake. It would take a phenomenal amount of money to move them, the courts wouldn't help move a large company out of the way for a new product with no brand penetration, and you can bet that ITV would demand that as cash, which would have Apple's shareholders in a fury. ("You're blowing how much on a domain name???")

Re:It's already gone (4, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994121)

Apple would never call it iTV for this reason. And before people ask "why don't Apple buy ITV", ITV's enterprise value is 327.01 billion. Apple could afford that, but 1/3 of all their money just for a name, I don't think so.

Re:It's already gone (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994565)

It's really worth that much for Benny Hill and Space 1999?

Re:It's already gone (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994619)

From what I could tell, their enterprise value is actually £2.768 billion [telegraph.co.uk] , making them rather affordable compared to what you said. That said, Apple is more likely to simply purchase a license to use the term in the consumer electronics space, or else to buy it outright from them, much as they did with the term "Apple" when they settled their lawsuits with Apple Records a few years back. Apple hasn't indicated any interest in getting into the media production industry, which is currently well outside of their purview, and even at a "mere" £2.8, that would still be one hell of an expensive name for a product that hasn't been announced and can have its name changed free of charge.

Re:It's already gone (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994755)

I used Yahoo Finance, http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=ITV.L [yahoo.com]

Perhaps Yahoo are a factor of 1,000 out. Unsure what is realistic these days, with tech company bubbles around.

Re:It's already gone (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994889)

if their market cap is 3.something billion.. and their "enterprise value" is 100x that..

"Enterprise value is calculated as market cap plus debt, minority interest and preferred shares, minus total cash and cash equivalents"

Re:It's already gone (1)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995313)

Pounds and pence, I'm afraid - you've exaggerated the value of ITV by a solid 100x (or 60x if we assume that you were thinking its value was quoted in dollars).

ITV has a market capitalisation of £3.2m and negligable net debt. So, an enterprise value of - say - $5bn. And they do Downton Abbey.

Mac Fan (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993991)

I like anything that is shiny and made by Apple!

Trademarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994005)

So, good luck calling it that here in the UK.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2406230A

I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (2)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994007)

This is getting dangerously close to the super high end crap they sell audiophiles.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (3, Funny)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994105)

This is getting dangerously close to the super high end crap they sell audiophiles.

No, not even slightly close [dedicatedaudio.com] . Yes, that's a POWER cable.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994173)

Makes Denon's cat5 cable look a steal.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994297)

But look! There's $505 off! It's a bargain!

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (2)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994133)

I don't care that much about the material, but I do care a *lot* about the finish.

Brushed aluminum will ensure I never buy it regardless of how good it is. I will only ever buy a TV that has a matte black finish on the bezel. It's the only thing that doesn't intrude on my viewing.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994155)

You're weird.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994775)

Actually a glossy black bezel can be nice when done well. It reflects some of the on-screen image, softening the edge of the picture. It's a cheap and easy way to increase "immersion" in the image that almost all quality TVs use. The only ones you can get with matte black plastic these days are cheap supermarket crap.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995253)

I've never seen a grade 1 or grade 2 screen with a gloss black surround. They are usually matte black or 18% grey.

Re:I don't care what my TV case is made of.. (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995389)

It isn't the reflection of the image that causes problems, it's the surrounding light.

Unless you only ever watch TV in darkness, the bezel becomes a reflector for all overhead lights/windows/etc. The entire scene is moving but there's a fixed point of light on the bezel that throws the hole thing off.

I don't see the point (4, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994015)

It'd be interesting except every rumor I've ever heard quotes this 27" size which is small by today's standards and the prices I've heard are all well over a grand. If they came out with what amounts to a 42" iPad with a tuner and sold it for $1,200 to $1,500 I think they'd make a killing even if the resolution was the same as an iPad. Coming out with one half that sized when I can buy a 42" for $500 or $600 is pointless. 27" TVs sell for a couple of hundred not $1,500. What they are describing is an iMac without the computer part and a tuner thrown in. I really doubt the lack of a tuner is why people around the country aren't watching iMacs instead of TVs in their living rooms.

Poor mans luxury (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994099)

iDevices are this generations BMW car. They are incredibly well marketed and I cannot begin to count the number of people on many Apple forums that I visit who finance all of these devices.

How do you tell when someone is going beyond their means in the realm of electronics

1) They finance it

2) They quibble over 25 and 50 dollar upgrades

3) See #1 combined with going with a top end model when a lower end easily suffices

Don't underestimate the power of Apple's marketing to have people make irrational purchasing decisions. Come people don't need a new device each generation but forums everywhere are replete with many doing such

Re:Poor mans luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994163)

Financing is about the only way to buy when they refuse to accept cash, check, or money order while the banks refuse to let you have more than $200/day on a debit card.

Re:Poor mans luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994477)

Funny, I've paid cash for each car, and the only time I didn't write a check was when they offered, up front, to cover the wire transfer fee. Dealers want the money, and the money is in selling the financing, but they'll easily cave when you threaten to walk.

Re:Poor mans luxury (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994837)

Did you actually walk into the dealership with a suitcase of cash, or did you write them a check?

Re:Poor mans luxury (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994869)

(and, yes, I know -- 15k in hundreds is hardly a suitcase. It's a figure of speech.)

Re:Poor mans luxury (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995323)

You bring a certified check from the bank. But a dealer has the avenues and know how to accept a large non-certified check.

Re:Poor mans luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994551)

Your bank is weird. Mine lets me pay for anything with my debit card, as long as whatever I'm paying for isn't actually more than what I have available.

Maybe it's an american thing? I lived in the US for 3 years and the banking situation is hopelessly antiquated. It's like you guys live in the 80's wrt banks.

Re:I don't see the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994293)

I completed a consumer survey a few weeks ago that included a question about my likliehood of buying a 32" Apple-branded TV.

Re:I don't see the point (1)

WalkingBear (555474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994641)

I'd love to have a TV with the resolution of the current iPad3. Though I'd prefer to have a 50" panel with the same pixel *density* as the iPad3. :)

Re:I don't see the point (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994915)

at that size/resolution, I'd prefer it to be curved already.

Apple TV (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994051)

Would rather have an add-on box that had these features so I don't need a new tv and will work with anything out there. Why would anyone buy a TV with such integrated, limited features when they will be outdated long before the TV is?

Give me a marginally smart tv (net capable, some apps), and then anything else let a standalone and easily replaceable box be added, sort of like, I don't know, the current AppleTV?

Running out of HDMI ports (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994355)

Why would anyone buy a TV with such integrated, limited features when they will be outdated long before the TV is?

Because they already have enough external boxes (pay TV decoder, game console, etc.) creating a spider web of cables behind the TV, and they're running out of ports.

Re:Running out of HDMI ports (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994431)

Why not use a port multiplier?

The simple reality is this will lead to less cables and replacing the TV way more often. Which is what the OEMS want.

Another remote to lose (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994867)

I had never read the term "port multiplier". A cursory Google search showed that it can mean a switch box (select among several signals) or a signal splitter (run multiple displays from one signal). I assume you meant the switch box. But not all HDMI switches can be operated from the recliner, and even among those that can, it's still another remote to lose.

You only need one port (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994461)

Why would you have so many other devices, when the AppleTV will do all of that and more? You only need one port when you have an AppleTV!

(please don't take this post seriously, I just wondered what it would be like if I worked for Apple marketing.)

Re:Running out of HDMI ports (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994483)

An Apple branded TV won't solve that problem.

It will just cost more money today and then even more money tomorrow when it becomes obsolete and isn't supported anymore.

That's the problem with "smart" TVs generally.

Display quality? (2)

GerbilSoft (761537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994123)

The one consistent thing I've seen with the vast majority of HDTVs is that many of them cannot show a basic computer image without messing up the display in some way. For example, many "1080p" HDTVs arbitrarily limit the VGA input to 1024x768, and there's also models that arbitrarily subsample input to 4:2:2, which introduces color fringing. (Just try using any sort of program that displays text on that!) Virtually none of the displays I've used that are marketed as standard monitors have these issues.

What I'm wondering is if Apple's "HDTV" will actually be usable as a standard monitor, or if they'll use the same garbage decoders found in the rest of the dime-a-dozen displays. If they do use a standard monitor decoder instead of garbage, then it might actually be worth a purchase, regardless of the brand name or extra iOS functionality. (Obviously it would need to actually support various inputs like VGA, YPbPr, etc; a Thunderbolt-only HDTV is kinda useless.)

Re:Display quality? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994217)

Especially with plasma displays, the science is more complicated than "spray this buffer of cathodes onto a screen". Some of it has to do with copy protection mechanisms, too. But essentially, if you don't display at native resolution, the scaling artifacts would be unacceptable, so they only use native resolution

Re:Display quality? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994399)

Why use the VGA input at all?

I hook my computer up to my LCD TV using HDMI and have none of these problems.

Re:Display quality? (1)

GerbilSoft (761537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994787)

I have a ThinkPad T60p, which only has VGA on the base unit. I also use VGA with most of my other electronic devices, since VGA doesn't have the cable length issues that DVI and HDMI have.

I have also seen these issues on the same TVs using HDMI/DVI, especially broken EDIDs. It's not just limited to the VGA decoder, and quite honestly, if a 2012 HDTV can't match the VGA decoding capabilities of a 2000 PC LCD (Dell 1701FP), something's wrong with it.

Re:Display quality? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994647)

This is Apple. The likelihood of them supporting VGA as standard is virtually nil. The last time I had a Mac with VGA output built in was in the '90s. Everything since then has used one of their adapters.

Re:Display quality? (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994745)

The vast majority of HDTVs use HDMI input. HDMI (at its basic level) is electrically the same as DVI. A simple DVI to HDMI adapter or cable will cost you peanuts and you can get a 1:1 picture from your PC to your HDTV. Just make sure that you've adjust the TV to not do any zooming. A lot of HDTVs will "zoom" in the picture a bit because some older broadcasts had overscan borders. Turning off or lowering the sharpness filters, MPEG reduction and other post processing will make your HDTV look pretty much like a huge computer monitor without any of the quality loss you're used to seeing.

Re:Display quality? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994751)

The main thing that messes up computer displays on HDTVs is edge enhancement. Turn that off and everything will look nice again, unless your TV really is a POS.

Re:Display quality? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994909)

"Edge enhancement" i.e. oversharpening makes everything look shitty, whether it's a movie or a baseball game or a computer display. I imagine that whoever is producing broadcast signals sharpens them exactly how much they need to sharpen them on their own, and is probably pretty annoyed to see GIANT HALOS around everything on people's tv's.

Re:Display quality? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994973)

practically all new full-hd or hd-ready screens let you drive them at the native resolution and you'd be a fool not to. practically all of them let you turn off enhancements too(craptamenhacements.. ).

Re:Display quality? (1)

GerbilSoft (761537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995091)

I did use the native resolution when running tests on HDTVs. The 1024x768 thing was an issue with some older models that either had broken EDIDs, only exposed 1024x768 on the EDID, or claimed that any resolution other than 1024x768 was "out of range". (Also "720p" plasma screens that actually have a 1024x768 native resolution due to non-square pixels.)

Turning off "enhancements" helps a bit, but still nowhere near a PC monitor. As an example, I tested a 46" Sony Bravia a while ago (don't remember the model number). At 1920x1080, a checkerboard pattern test showed interference between pixels and lines. That interference doesn't happen on any PC monitor I've tested, even with analog VGA.

Excellent! (3, Funny)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994129)

I've been axiously waiting for someone to put an affordable, technolgically advanced TV out on the market that will respect the user's freedom.

download caps will kill this like the Sony online (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994145)

download caps will kill this like the Sony online idea.

Re:download caps will kill this like the Sony onli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994639)

Buy out Comcast and make it a Co-op. $158 / subscriber / month for two years for the market cap.

It will sell like hot cakes. (2)

csumpi (2258986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994157)

Cost doesn't matter. Size doesn't matter.

If Apple pushes this with a billion dollar ad campaign, saying it's revolutionary and make people feel like losers if they don't have one, it will sell like hot cakes.

I know several families who are struggling to make ends meet, yet mom and dad sport an iphones with data plans, kids have ipods and ipads. It's sad, but true.

 

Re:It will sell like hot cakes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994263)

Cost doesn't matter. Size doesn't matter. If Apple pushes this with a billion dollar ad campaign, saying it's revolutionary and make people feel like losers if they don't have one, it will sell like hot cakes

This.

People will buy what the advertising tells them to buy. It's that simple.

Once upon a time... (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994181)

Once upon a time, Apple Computers signed an agreement with Apple Records (of Beatles fame) that allowed them to use the Apple name provided they stayed out of the music business. Then along came iTunes, and the "Computer" was dropped from the name. I just wonder how much they paid the old Apple Records company for the right to broaden their markets?

Yeah, it's off topic. :)

Re:Once upon a time... (2)

expat.iain (1337021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994269)

You can find out here [wikipedia.org]

Re:Once upon a time... (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994487)

Thanks. Wikipedia and search engines are great info stores -- if you know what terms to search for!

Not for long... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994209)

CEO of Apple's main hardware supplier Foxconn

will be manufactured by a 50-50 joint venture between Foxconn and the Japanese manufacturer Sharp

I'm willing to bet one of these facts is about to change.
Either this CEO is going to get canned, or Apple will be giving that 50% to someone else.

Totally innovative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994237)

Lets see what patents will Apple have when it comes to television.

TV + tablet (2)

ModelX (182441) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994247)

My telco offers IPTV box with a load of features but a really lousy interface. There's also a tablet app available that will show most of the channels but the interface is basically select one channel from a list and watch it. With so many people having tablets around it makes so much sense to integrate with TVs and make a tablet somewhat like a secondary screen and a much better remote. Apple has everything in place to make such a TV and a lot of space to innovate. Ipads and Iphones can become personal touch interfaces for the apps running on TV. I can think of dozens of functions that can be made easier and more intuitive with such a setup. Plus they can afford to use a higher-powered CPU/GPU in the TV making it more suitable for console-like software.

Re:TV + tablet (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994497)

Maybe. I have a family of iDevices, all of which can throw content onto my TVs via airplay/AppleTV pucks. We rarely do that. Having a dedicated remote in the room that's always with the TV is nice, as is a common front end.

Of course, my ATVs are jailbroken and run Plex to access all of our server-based movie storage (DVD/BR rips) and tv content (via sickbeard). Maybe if I didn't have that I'd wish for a phone interface, but probably not.

U R doing it wrong. (0)

Cosgrach (1737088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994325)

Shhhhh. If we are all quiet enough about it, Apple will start using iTV as a name before figuring it out that someone else already has it. Then ITV can sue the living crap out of Apple for trademark infringement. Would that not be sweet?

Love-hate the idea (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994365)

If Apple created a TV it would be awesome and terrible.

Apple has the ability to make things that seem "futuristic" just by incorporating the technologies that everyone begs and pleads to be put into devices, but companies never do. Ex: Voice recognition is a killer app in the living room. The ability to say "Play the next episode of " without picking-up a remote, or running the Netflix/Hulu/DVR app, would be great. A tiny bit of intelligence would be good too: "Play the next episode of that is not a multipart episode" is a good query. Recognizing the person speaking also opens up lots of possibilities.

But if Apple did it, it wouldn't work with which would be frustrating. Maybe that would be your Linux streaming box, or your stereo with the optical audio system, or your favorite streaming service that you just bought a subscription to.

Re:Love-hate the idea (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994571)

You've got to get the basic data processing right before any of the voice controlled hype means anything.

Can ANY Apple interface manage what you are asking of it now? Using ANY available input?

3rd parties are great sometimes in how they can provide a little bit of creative chaos so that useful new features get developed. You don't have to wait for the local monopoly to finally get interested.

Re:Love-hate the idea (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994793)

Thanks Slashdot for eliminating everything I had in angle brackets. Now the body of the post makes no sense. [grumble]

50 / 50? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994521)

But would it be 50/50? Foxconn just bought a 50% stake in Sharp’s LCD display manufacturing plant. So is it 50/50 with Sharp or with the LCD Plant - in which case it would be more like 75% / 25%.

It won't happen - TV companies aren't making money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994623)

From bbc.co.uk (competitor of iTV ...)

(Sony's) TV business, one of its biggest growth drivers in the past, has been hit hard by increased competition and falling prices. The division has been making losses for eight years in a row.

LCD displays are commodity hardware with tiny margins. The only things I could see Apple adding is a decent menu system, an intuitive remote and a built-in PVR system (maybe). Churning out overpriced commodity hardware would make them some nice profits in the short term, but in the long term they would dilute their brand, which is basically most of Apple's value.

I'm sure Apple microwave ovens would sell great too, perhaps they could pay homage to the current CEO by calling it the iCook ...

open up fort knox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39994715)

If a 24" monitor is $1,000, I can only imagine what a 40 inch will cost.

If true, (1)

melted (227442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39994969)

If true, Foxconn is not getting the next contract for it. Loose lips sink ships, Terry. Learn to keep your pie hole shut.

They were due for a flop/dumb idea.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995097)

Honestly the iTV is a dumb idea. Now an iSight camera that plugs into the AppleTV3 to give you face time at home on your TV... That's a smart idea.

The TV market is so saturated with a fight for the lowest price, I cant see apple make any inroads at all.

Unless this thing is a touch display... (1)

bloggerhater (2439270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995259)

Unless this thing is a touch display I fail to see the point of such a specialized device. Apple tv units can be upgraded to support things like Siri if they chose to go that route in the next gen. Why would anyone assume Apple would release a niche device like this?

If anything, Apple iTV is a myth perpetrated by Foxconn to increase their own market value. The market clearly indicates that people like the hockey puck set top boxes but are not interested in televisions with built in premium functionality. I'm not even sure the iPad 7" is legit. Wouldn't a Bluetooth 4.0 enabled smart watch based off the nano make more sense? A major iPhone overhaul? AR glasses?

Any of these things make more sense to me than iTV. The future is in the personal wireless network. Not an Apple branded television.

Re:Unless this thing is a touch display... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995769)

It'll be controllable from iPad/iPhone. You can do that now with the current AppleTV box. It's pretty nice, actually. Having the *TV* panel be touch makes no sense. Who sits a foot from their TV? Well, I do when gaming, but I'm weird.

Any of these things make more sense to me than iTV. The future is in the personal wireless network.

What percentage of the market are you?

The other side of story (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39995683)

It has to be more than tech. I'm thinking there's some sort of maybe revolutionary probably evolutionary content deal.

How about this: the Apple functionality is still a little AppleTV-like box that unplugs from the back of then TV so you can upgrade that part of it like people do with their smartphones.

Maybe implement all the functions in reprogrammable FPGAs so you can do "hardware" updates by just reflashing the configuration PROMs.

Apple will keep regualr Apple TV too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39995701)

it would be stupid to alienate people who already have a TV. I don't care if Apple gives me free Cable TV for life, I wouldn't just punt my existing TV out the door.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>