Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television 244
Apple has been rumored to be developing their own line of HDTVs for years, but a new report from the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) says while those plans did exist, they've been abandoned. Apple began pondering the idea of jumping into the television market roughly a decade ago, as iTunes started hosting video content. The AppleTV made a foray into living rooms in 2007, and other devices reached the prototype stage. The company continued to do research and work on their ideas, but eventually gave up more than a year ago.
Apple had searched for breakthrough features to justify building an Apple-branded television set, those people said. In addition to an ultra-high-definition display, Apple considered adding sensor-equipped cameras so viewers could make video calls through the set, they said. Ultimately, though, Apple executives didn't consider any of those features compelling enough to enter the highly competitive television market, led by Samsung Electronics Co. Apple typically likes to enter a new product area with innovative technology and easier-to-use software.
Compelling? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Insightful)
The smart watch market is really nascent, Pebble notwithstanding, while the TV market is saturated and cut-throat. A low barrier of entry makes the watch market, while niche, possibly more profitable than trying to crack into they hyper-competitive TV market.
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Interesting)
The TV market is bad, but the watch market is not great.
What they should be trying to crack is the in-car nav/infotainment systems - the iCarStereo. Current nav systems are somewhere between total-suckage and so-distracting-they-cause-accidents. Bluetooth pairing is painful when it even works, calling systems don't integrate with smartphone phonebooks, there is no way to share contact addresses, and the voice controls are no better than someone reading a "Car navigation is attempting to quit, cancel or allow?" dialog box. And the interfaces are so poor as to command the driver's full attention for seconds, looking for touch-screen items or clicking the right button, taking focus off the task of driving.
People would trade their old cars in for one equipped with an Apple iCarStereo if it solved those problems. A watch? It will take a lot of luck for it to be more than a fashion item that falls off the radar in a few years.
Re:Compelling? (Score:5, Informative)
They're doing this. Granted, there's no iOS car version yet, but Carplay is a solid step in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
CarpLay.
The innovative new Apple technology for enthusiasts of copulating with carp!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
*Being* the infotainment system is not that great a play. Those systems are increasingly tied to the platform of the vehicle so you can't easily upgrade it without buying a new vehicle. Apple nor Google are particularly well known for being fond of supporting tech that, on average, would not receive a hardware upgrade for 11 years for any user.
Improving infotainment systems interaction with the driver's handset so that a handset upgrade drives all the value add they would want, that works. Hence Google a
Re: (Score:3)
Apple nor Google are particularly well known for being fond of supporting tech that, on average, would not receive a hardware upgrade for 11 years for any user.
No one in tech does that. But the insinuation that Apple is a worst offender here is demonstrably false. Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.
Re: (Score:3)
Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.
Not really. As 'far as the hardware will allow' is frequently that apple has decided to drop support for a chipset or io controller or something. And the old hardware would run have run the new software just fine if they hadn't simply dropped support for it.
You can't drop support for a chipset from the OS, and then turn around then say your OS doesn't run on it because the hardware won't allow it. Apple does exactly that all the time.
In other cases they've set completely arbitrary limits on old hardware, an
Re:Compelling? (Score:5, Informative)
No one in tech does that. But the insinuation that Apple is a worst offender here is demonstrably false. Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.
Please explain why my Mac Pro 2,1 which has 8 cores of Xeon 3 GHz and 21 GB of RAM is not able to run anything above Lion? Even though it is 7 years old, It is still faster than almost anything apple has to offer (esp. after I upgraded to SSD). Yet, I am stuck on Lion unless I am willing to make a hackintosh out of it and then it can actually run any OSX... so... no real reason why it can't run newer OSX, just that apple did not want to do it.
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Informative)
It can't run because your Mac Pro only has a 32-bit EFI. This is not an excuse for Apple for not making it work; I'm just noting the actual technical reasoning.
http://www.everymac.com/system... [everymac.com]
However, the simple workaround (if you have a Yosemite-compatible video card) that doesn't involve a Hackintosh-level install is to use a modified boot.efi file that thunks EFI64 calls from the 64-bit OS X kernel to the EFI32 firmware of your Pro. Look at the first post of this thread
http://forums.macrumors.com/sh... [macrumors.com]
and navigate to the section quoted below.
I'm typing this from my Mac Pro 1,1 (with an ATI Radeon HD 4870). I used a different Mac (recent Mac Mini) to install Yosemite to a drive, copied the updated boot.efi file, installed the drive into my Pro, and I've been good to go ever since.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats a horrible idea - those cars would get vendor locked to apple.
What needs to happen is for these systems to be modular. Screen separate from CPU, and a universal standard for things like steering wheel controls. Allow me to swap out my CPU/Software, and have it use a standard communication method for the integrated controls. Right now the only replacement options are ugly ass after market conversion things that don't work right with the integrated stuff. Example: In my car, I can replace the head
Re: (Score:2)
How horrible it is rather depends on your POV, doesn't it? Which in turn depends on whether you're Apple or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Compelling? (Score:5, Insightful)
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also their ecosystem is very important to their success, and it would be much harder to rapidly grow an ecosystem with $1K+ TVs that are replaced every 10 yrs rather than a $100 smart box that can be added to each TV in the house and replaced at minimum cost as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't necessarily say this is true- definitely recommend a Samsung or LG. The premium for those brands though is only maybe 20%, even more of a reason for Apple to not get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is the TV market as a whole a bit of a bloodbath, the TV market for which Apple would be most capable(systems nicer than those purchased more or less purely on price; but cheap and consumer grade enough that they need cooperate in only the most basic ways with other hardware) is especially harrowing. Since TVs are a keep-it-simple-stupid sort of device, there's virtually no UI/UX difference between the cheap crap and the midrange, it's just a question of how nice the panel is.
At least with computers, it is very often the case that cheap computers are a recipe for regret and sorrow, so Apple's strategy of 'we are going to charge you more; but give you the product you actually want, even if you don't know it yet' often makes people happy. With TVs, people who think that they want a big, cheap, screen are usually correct.
Re: (Score:2)
And the vertical integration that worked so well for the ipod of selling the songs and the hardware that goes with it doesn't seem to be the model that television is going. Almost no one is advocating for a television model where every episode of every show is purchased, like itunes did for songs on an album. People seem to want a bundle of shows, certainly all of the episodes of one show, and frequently many of the shows on a particular channel that they like (or small group of channels that they like). Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Whether cable tv, netflix, or amazon prime, people like to rent their television content by the month, and that isn't really Apple's thing.
They seem to be moving in that direction with the addition of HBO subscriptions to Apple TV. They could renegotiate deals with studios to rent bundles of shows and it Netflix to let people buy Netflix via the App store, for example. If they get enough AppleTV's into the hands of consumers so that they can significantly raise Netflix's subscriber base Netflix may just be willing to cut Apple in on the monthly fee. Alternatively, Apple could negotiate with content owners to create their own AppleFlix and offe
Re:Compelling? (Score:4, Informative)
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
Exactly. TV's tend to be a low margins price sensitive business an that just isn't Apple's game. More importantly, virtually all of the advanced features they could build into a TV they could put into AppleTV and carve out the higher margin part of the TV business and leave the display manufacturers to fight it out. In auditor, building features into AppleTV means they can adapt to whatever display technology is popular without having to pick a winner as they would have to if they built a TV and the Apple TV can simply connect to a new display whenever an old one is replaced an thus Apple's connection with the end user is not lost when the TV is upgraded.
Why go into a low margin business where the technology isn't settled and you have no real advantage to be able to charge a premium that you can't already charge with an existing device?
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention people hold on to televisions for 10+ years. That's not a good business for anyone in the silicon/systems space to be in.
Re: (Score:2)
To many people a glowing apple on the front would classify as a "compelling feature".
But honestly if they made a TV with a decent remote control (maybe touchscreen?) that alone would make me consider buying one (I have not owned any apple devices ever).
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the thing: in most home theatre setups, you're never even exposed to the UI of your television. It stays locked on one input permanently (the input from your AV receiver), you're not adjusting settings after the initial setup, you're not using it to change channels or volume or mute... The interfaces that you're going to interact with will be from your TV service box, your game consoles, your streaming box, etc.
So what is the TV other than a passive display to display the output of other devices?
Re:Compelling? (Score:5, Funny)
And either way, Wired would have called it the greatest and most revolutionary product ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even go near Wired anymore. It's as if Apple is the only tech company on the planet and anything they touch is gold -- no, not just gold, but iGold, it's better than original gold. I literally looked up their parent company because I was sure Apple owned them.
And oh yeah, Apple invents everything according to Wired it seems, they'd never borrow/steal, no never... because no other company could ever innovate or invent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, personally I think a TV is a lot more compelling than a half-assed watch.
Yeah, and I prefer computers to cars. So what? The question wasn't which category is more compelling to you or to me. The question was whether or not they had a compelling feature for that market that would differentiate them from the others they'd be competing against.
When it comes to the Apple Watch, they didn't half-ass it, though it may not be something that interests you (or me, for that matter). But despite our lack of interest, it is a compelling product that offers a number of nice refinements on wh
Re: (Score:2)
just like kids listening to U2 and "alternative music" in the 80's and 90's. oldest marketing trick in the book. sell something to millions of people by making it seem you are unique and special and part of a small select group buying that product
Why did they ditch the TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they have half a clue ...
Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the ability to innovate and change it. They aren't always first movers, but they DO bring innovation and of course profits to any segment they enter.
The magic is in saying "NO" to doing things that don't make sense... entering a crowded, unimaginative, razor-thin margin, mature TV market doesn't make sense for Apple. That's why they said no.... No more, no less.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's why I'm glad they decided to drop the idea. It means that for the last year they've been focused on updating the tiny AppleTV box which a lot more people will be able to afford compared to the cost of a new TV.
I'd also like to see an update to the iPod shuffle. A tiny e-ink indicator (bars, dots, whatever) to know the battery life in 20% increments.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to see an update to the iPod shuffle. A tiny e-ink indicator (bars, dots, whatever) to know the battery life in 20% increments.
Didn't they just update the shuffle with a OLED screen and a band?
http://apple.com/watch [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's the iPod nano.
Re: (Score:3)
The crux, as I see it, is that an add-on box is clunky compared to a TV. It's a thing that has to be installed. That's not vastly hard, but it's a power cord and a data cable, and it just kinda hangs off of your TV. That's not elegant. (Note: I don't have an Apple TV, but I don't get the impression that they have any better solution than my Roku does.)
They can certainly make the software better, but I can see why they would want to sell you an entire television to make the entire user experience just right.
Re: (Score:2)
The crux, as I see it, is that an add-on box is clunky compared to a TV. It's a thing that has to be installed.
On the other hand, if you already own a decent TV, then installing an add-on box like Apple TV is a much easier installation than a new television set.
We need a VESA standard for accessory brackets (Score:3)
Most TVs are so big these days that there's a ton of real estate on the back of them for hanging accessories, but other than the VESA mounting bracket standard(s) there isn't a standard for mounting STBs.
Some of the larger STBs (like DVRs with spinning rust) maybe wouldn't be practical rear mounted due to weight, but the smaller boxes like Apple TV or Roku would.
IR transmission for remotes might be an issue, but so many of these boxes can be controlled via wifi that it wouldn't be an issue.
It would also be
Re: (Score:2)
Good thought. I really like having a wifi remote for my Roku. Line of sight stops being an issue.
Re:Why did they ditch the TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they have half a clue ...
Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the ability to innovate and change it. They aren't always first movers, but they DO bring innovation and of course profits to any segment they enter.
The magic is in saying "NO" to doing things that don't make sense... entering a crowded, unimaginative, razor-thin margin, mature TV market doesn't make sense for Apple. That's why they said no.... No more, no less.
My company declines jobs and new markets all the time. We run some quick numbers and make a decision on whether it makes sense to take on X risk for Y% margin. Nobody calls us "magic".
Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the potential to charge $1 for a lime that everyone else is selling for 50 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was selling half-price iPads and Apple Watches?
Re:Why did they ditch the TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the potential to charge $1 for a lime that everyone else is selling for 50 cents
Apple's flagship phones sell for about the same as Samsung's. Apple's computers sell for similar prices to PC systems of similar specs.
What Apple doesn't do is sell garbage systems to chase the cheap end of the market. No one complains that BMW won't sell a $10,000 car.
People whine and moan about all the crapware that comes bundled with the latest Dell PC, but that's how they manage to make a profit. Apple just charges a reasonable price for the system instead. It also means Apple has the money to fund R&D and invest in manufacturing technology. When was the last time any of the PC makers innovated on anything?
Re: (Score:3)
The real reason is that they'd have to buy the panels from Samsung.
There's no point in doing that when they can sell the only differentiation their set would have - the software - in a product they already make - the Apple TV - without letting Samsung take a cut.
Make it more expensive ? (Score:3, Informative)
They could have added $1000 to the price. That's always a popular Apple feature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could have added $1000 to the price. That's always a popular Apple feature.
You have been modded as "Troll"; but "making it more expensive" is a usual "(marketing) feature" for some brands (i don't dare to mention Apple because... my "/." karma is suffering righ now!).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
use Cadillac as an example
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0... [autoblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
it is not just a "shared platform", but the same car, build in the same factory... NOTHING different, except for the brand!
The Porsche has leather seats?
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't mention BMW, possibly because he knows that a BMW is a BMW[1]. It's a different situation to Auskodschwagen.
[1] Unless it's an AMG. But those really are different.
Re: (Score:3)
Starbucks uses the same feature. A big reason for drinking Starbucks is to show other people that you can afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Starbucks uses the same feature. A big reason for drinking Starbucks is to show other people that you can afford it.
Here in Greece (like in Italy, France, or -while i don't like to admit that-, at a lesser degree -but still...- even... Turkey!) we know about coffee - since i don't want to make my poor /. karma suffer even more..., let me put it this way: if you are from USA and visit any Starbucks in Greece you will feel like home... but if you want to meet Greeks you must go to any of the other cafeterias existing in almost each building block. Thankfully for Starbucks, in Greece we have many tourists (2.5 times our po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they actually enforce EU law? The rotten bastards!
Re: (Score:3)
A big reason for drinking Starbucks is to show other people that you can afford it.
LOLWUT? Starbucks in cheaper than most of the local coffee ships near me. I love love LOVE the Philz Coffee downstairs but I'm not kidding myself about the price: that Ecstatic Iced isn't gonna pay for itself. Coffee Bar was better (and more expensive) yet. Around SF, at least, people buy Starbucks for the same reasons they buy McDonald's: it's a known quality and not expensive. It won't be the best you've had, but it'll be exactly like the last cup you bought and it won't break the bank.
On my block, Starbu
Re: (Score:2)
People buy Starbucks because they know exactly what they're getting it and they want/"need" coffee. They also tend to like Starbucks, which probably plays a small role in purchasing habits.
That's why they didn't do it (Score:2, Funny)
Because they couldn't overcharge. I'm sure they researched the industry and discovered that it is highly price competitive and that just putting an aluminium frame on it would justify a doubling or tripling in price. So they weren't interested. Apple only likes markets where they can overcharge to a massive degree. They don't want to just make money, they want to make stupid amounts of money.
Screens are a dead end (Score:3)
I think that within 20 years the Hololens concepts presented by MS will be reality (http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us).
Initially it won't be a fashion statement but as the tech gets better it will become a standard in society (who knows how long that could take). After all the ability to connect your virtual world with the real world has been the focus of technology for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
shit i'd need new eyes by then
Quit it with smart TVs (Score:5, Informative)
I have a Smart TV but I don't use any of the functionality of it. I have separate devices that I can use to do the exact same functions and I can replace them easily for a small amount of money if I want new/different features.
For an example of why I do this, there's how google [google.com] changed their YouTube API so a bunch of older devices no longer work with it. Watch YouTube on a TV? Replace the entire TV. Watch it off a Chromecast and want to replace it? $35
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I use a dumb, feature-less 23" widescreen computer monitor as my TV, connected to an external AppleTV box.
New AppleTV with new features that I'd like? I buy a new AppleTV.
Competitor offering something better/different? I can ditch Apple.
This is the best for the environment (recycling a tiny box instead of a whole display), best for our wallets (tiny boxes are less expensive) and best for us (if we're not tied to a particular brand, they have to keep competing so our next upgrade is still the same
A computer monitor is too small (Score:2)
That's why I use a dumb, feature-less 23" widescreen computer monitor as my TV, connected to an external AppleTV box.
So you use a monitor with a substantially smaller screen size than even my old CRT TV. I am looking at 60"+ TVs and these are basically all "smart TVs". The main feature I want in a TV for my living room is a huge screen. Like you I don't give a crap about most of the extra features. I just want enough input ports to hook up to my gear and a big screen with a very good image quality. Don't need Netflix, 3D, or any of the other crap. If I want it I'll use an external box to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
People normally reference Seiki at this point: http://seiki.com/company/how-w... [seiki.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I find that a 23", 1080p display is enough to watch Netflix. As a bonus, it means I can easily tolerate the lower quality setting which Netflix Canada had to add for us because most of our ISPs have ridiculously low monthly caps.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/0... [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone lives in a gigantic American-style house.
This is why... (Score:3, Informative)
Macintosh TV: Introduced Oct1993, died Feb 1994. We hardly knew ye... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
HA HA! Seriously, we have make your own sandwich day at work, so FU!
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it did have less space than a Nomad and lacked wireless...
All they really need as a compelling feature is... (Score:5, Insightful)
a smart TV with a responsive UI that isn't a nightmare to navigate and actually gets updates after you buy it.
Although at this point, all I want from a TV anymore is a display with a bunch of inputs, no speakers, no network connectivity, no tuner and no smart features. I haven't used the audio, tuner or smart features on my current Panasonic Viera in years, all it does is display whatever source is selected on the receiver, all the rest of those "features" were a waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a projector would be perfect for you, if your TV room would work with one. Price is (or can be) comparable to your average TV monitor, for an image 2-3 times larger, and just as HD.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can get 4K projectors yet.
Also, my long long room with peaked roof wouldn't be ideal for the projector.
Otherwise I'd be interested.
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]
I don't think you can get 4K projectors yet.
Also, my long long room with peaked roof wouldn't be ideal for the projector.
Otherwise I'd be interested.
[/quote]
Yes you can. In fact its been around longer as projectors than its been a thing for TV screens. However traditionally thats beause they where used for movie cinemas.
There are however now domestic models.
8K TV (Score:2)
It's simple really... (Score:2, Insightful)
TV's are basically a commodity item. Thin margins, race to the bottom, etc. Watches, although many of them are very cheap, can be a high end luxury item.
I don't see Apply trying to compete with Casio in the $10 watch market. But I do see them competing with Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer, Breitling, etc. in the very high end watch market. The profit margin in this market is quite high. You can also control the price, unlike the TV market.
The other thing about watches is that people that are into watches (like me)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. I'm not saying that I'm ready to run out and buy an Apple watch. But the Apple watch does things that the Rolex cannot do. For some people this might be reason enough to go out and buy one.
I fully appreciate the beauty and complexity of an automatic movement. Rolex makes a terrific long lasting timepiece.
Having said that, there are similarities. They are both status symbols. Both are well built. I'm not saying that an Apple watch is as good as a Rolex but it does have some things that will appeal t
Re: (Score:2)
Haha...good one. But seriously, all Apple products are status symbols of some sort. They are inspirational and part of the reason they give so much attention to detail. It's also part of the reason that they can get away with charging premium prices. Their customers believe that they are getting a superior product and are willing to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
I wonder when Apple Watch outsells all Rolex watches ever sold. First for units, then for value.
Re: (Score:2)
But I do see them competing with Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer, Breitling, etc. in the very high end watch market.
Really? Your going to compete the Apple Watch made by Quanta Computer with a high-end Swiss watch? I'd accept maybe a low end Swiss watch with a quartz movement, but certainly not one of the automatics. Definitely not any of the brands you mentioned.
Heck, the machining and finishing on those watches costs more than the Apple Watch. (maybe not including the absurdly priced Watch Edition... and by that I mean production cost, not MSRP)
m
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is what Apple Marketing thinks too, and they are very wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
This is apple signaling that they are serious players in the watch space, not just the smart-watch space. This matters because you want a serious presence at Baselworld, articles in "Watchtime" magazine, etc. That is the pathway to get your watches into boardrooms, 19th hole private clubs, and other elite status local
The real reason (Score:2)
Once his demise has been confirmed (with some steak-driven technology), the plans can continue apace.
Make Apple products for enterprise IT (Score:2)
Answer: because it was an awful idea (Score:3)
I bought and use an Apple TV all the time. It's how my kids watch Netflix, and how we rent movies 99% of the time. I love it. I would never buy an Apple television, though, because 1) I like my Vizio, 2) I don't want to have to upgrade my display just because an input device broke or became obsolete, and 3) there literally zero advantage to that arrangement instead of an external box connected via HDMI.
Lots of devices have built-in screens and it makes sense for them. I wouldn't buy a separate screen for a display-less laptop, for instance; making CPU + display into a single unit is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason at all for that to be true in the living room, though. How many sizes should they make? Does everyone get a 60" Apple Television even if they have a tiny living room, or will I be squinting at a 30" Apple Television from across the room? Which pixel technology will they choose? Eh, no thanks. Component systems still have their place, and the living room entertainment system is probably the perfect example of that.
I love my cheap little Apple TV and will probably upgrade it to the next model when that comes out. I don't love it so much that I'd throw out a perfectly usable display panel as part of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I love my cheap little Apple TV and will probably upgrade it to the next model when that comes out.
Same here. I don't see why they don't do with it what they did with the iPod and just add the TV features they were looking at to it. Add a small camera and give it messenger and FaceTime. Feature creep would make the next version more desirable and keep it ahead of other rivals without having to deal with the actual TV part.
It would never make any sense (Score:3)
For many the TV you buy is a complicated matter, and for many others there's going to be price issues. An Apple built TV would just be super expensive and Apple would have to quit making the AppleTV so people would be forced to buy their Apple built TV.
That would never make any sense. The AppleTV is a gateway to iTunes movies and rentals, and all those people who purchased content on them would go ballistic if they were suddenly told they have to buy a Apple built TV if they wanted to continue to watch their purchased content on a TV.
Apple can make a difference in DVR's and a over the top tv service, and that should be their focus in this space.
The horrible TV control interface (Score:5, Interesting)
If Apple can come up with a solution to this, it will own the nation's living rooms no matter how much its approach may cost. As it stands now every TV set has its own complex remote, which controls the receiver itself and selects your chosen device inputs into it. Each DVD player, PVR, game console and streaming box you attach to the set has its own remote, with its own different control interface that you have to mentally readapt to whenever you use the TV remote to select that device as the input. In addition to these and worst of all is the remote that controls your cable box, with its F-35 cockpit array of function buttons that cover every feature that any cable provider using the box might want to support. Each cable company allows some subset of these functions, leaving your cable remote with a number of "forbidden" buttons that if pressed accidentally will send your entertainment system into a region of hyperspace that only the cable company CSR can retrieve you from.
Then there is the content mess. No cable company online guide system works well enough for you to easily figure out what time CSI: Ramadi is on for your location, especially if you are not in a Major Urban Market. The Internet TV guides will get you the right night of the week eventually, but does it know you're on Arizona time, or is it an hour off this time of year? And since you're edging into cord cutting you're aware that you can stream last Wednesday's missed episode from the network site, if you're lucky enough that its Verify Your Provider logon actually includes your cable company in the list of five that it accepts. So you thought you had a right to view the program because it's over-the-air or on your cable tier?
Apple, do whatever it takes to bring some sanity to this interface, hopefully before the next time my mother accidentally lays a book down on her cable remote and loses contact with all her favorites for a week.
Re: (Score:2)
People still have cable? What is this, 1998?
Let me translate (Score:3, Funny)
"We realized even Appleheads won't buy a TV that only lets them watch programs through the iTunes store, and we can't figure out how to insert ads in to your cable feed."
Don't know how thin the TV makers' margins are but (Score:3)
... If Apple would make a relatively affordable TV on which I could buy and play movies via iTunes, I'd buy it.
I'm sick and tired of all the existing smart TV's; the last thing they are it's smart
-- Samsung 65" smart TV owner
Content companies? (Score:2)
Well, besides all the other listed problems with moving into the TV market. I'm sure apple had two major roadblocks for a uber high res TV. The question of who would supply the glass, and who would supply the content probably were insurmountable. Its not like Samsung or LG were going to sign exclusive sales deals to only sell the panels to apple. Then there are the content providers who probably refused to provide custom content for apple devices fearing a repeat of the itunes situation where they became be
Re:and it would only work with other apple product (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple
Re:and it would only work with other apple product (Score:4, Insightful)
Skype is available on all platforms last I checked. Maybe that's what he meant by Skype.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And iTunes is available on Windows also - just sayin'
Re:and it would only work with other apple product (Score:4, Informative)
But messages and facetime are both not, which would be the relevant products here.
Re: (Score:2)
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones. On the Mac messages can link to your favorite message client, which also works on anything. Facetime I will concede.
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement. And while Apple is definitely the most exclusive, I do use Gmail & Hangouts on my iPhone to talk to my wife on Android, and that works just fine and is what I use
Re: (Score:2)
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones
No, not quite. Messages on iphone CAN use SMS to communicate with other phones but that's about it. So yes a dumbphone can reason an iphone with sms, and the iphone will display the sms in messages and let the iphone user use messages to reply... but that''s it.
For example, what if the person you are trying to reach from your 'dumb phone' however is NOT using an iphone with an SMS plan? Or what if they are using messages on an iPod touch or macbook pro? These can't "fail over to SMS" to receive messages fro
Re: (Score:2)
Is it still terrible on Windows though? Also, Skype is available on way more platforms.
Linux works also (with a little work) (Score:2, Informative)
AAC files downloaded from iTunes work fine on all Sony gear (including the PlayStation). And quite a lot of other audio gear.
And of course, you can run iTunes on a Linux box [askubuntu.com] if you really want to - it's not like a few extra steps are a problem for a Linux user.
Re: (Score:2)
Skype is owned and run by Microsoft, that's what the replying gent was saying. All of those three "different" services are all run/owned by the same company. NOT to have high-intregration would be a major black eye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say this as if HDTVs can't have apps...
It can't. Unless they have embedded advertisements.
I have an old Vizio that has a really nice 24 hour content guide for OTA broadcasts. But the TV set is getting close to it's end of life, so I started looking for the same feature in a new one. Cannot have. Now, you need an app that fetches the listing information over a broadband connection. So advertisers can attach stuff and track what you are watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? 24 hour listing data is broadcast in over the air streams along with the program material.