According to a Wall Street Journal report, Apple has been briefing media executives on a new Apple television that can stream "shows, movies, and other content." The Journal spoke to "people familiar with the matter" that say Apple executives, including senior VP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, have detailed a system that would respond to user's voice and movements, and use voice to search for shows or change channels. Another person familiar with the matter told the Journal that these new services would work on "Apple's existing technologies, which include its Apple TV set-top box." In addition, users watching content on a mobile device will be able to move between devices, and resume viewing in the same spot on the TV set via AirPlay, functionality not currently available and that "may take longer" to appear than other TV concepts. Apple hasn't solely been contacting executives; the Journal notes that media companies have been reaching out to Apple for an update on its upcoming strategy.
There's been endless speculation on an Apple TV after Jobs was quoted in Walter Isaacson's biography that he'd "finally cracked it." Note, though, that The Wall Street Journal suggests nearly all plausible avenues Apple would pursue if it were working on a television service or device: it could be a TV, it might be a way for mobile devices to stream content without a set-top box, or it may be something that already works with current Apple technology. Content could come from television-service providers, or it may be licensed directly from media companies in the form of a subscription-service. While it's increasingly clear that Apple is working on something and feeling out content partnerships, there's no indication whether it's at the beginning or end of the process of bringing a TV to market, despite the assumption that it's close.



There are 147 Comments. Add yours.
Hope it’s good
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 8:56 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Hmm…I wonder if Apple would meet expectations of tech blog readers…or would it make a product so simple and intuitive to use that we will see lines forming everywhere on the release date…..
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If it’s a standalone TV, it’s going to be anywhere from $2999.99 to $3999.99 – almost guarantee it. Well out of the price range of most people. If this proves to be true, it will fail. If they keep the cost below $2K, it will be an unfathomable success. But I doubt it.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“But I doubt it.”
Because Apple has obviously messed up pricing on all their recent products?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:43 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
I think they will have a model under $2000. Apple has come to understand the value of low production costs and thus low consumer costs… Best example is the iPad.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:43 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Are SmartTVs really that expensive these days?
The only positive thing they might add is integrated content delivery.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
$2000 is still way too much for a TV for most people. People are buying $1000 tv’s. $ 2000 for a TV is for richers. You can get fantastic televisions for $1200. Then just get an Apple TV or whatever other content deliver box you need. I don’t get why it has to be integrated into the TV (except in the case of quick use items like AirPlay or DLNA which should be integrated). Why is Apple bothering with this when they still haven’t done enough with the existing Apple TV? There is no need for an entire TV to completely redo television. Only a better tiny box.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why Apple should bother with a TV set? Because it has higher margins than a 99$ box.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:33 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thats for sure. Even Macrumors commenters complain about the gross profit margins Apple enjoys while having all their manufacturing overseas. It puts oil companies to shame.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:57 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
The A5 chip in the iPhone is manufactured in Texas. Overseas what now? Dell’s manufacturing is all overseas too, I don’t see you bitching about them. Why is that, exactly? You should be demanding that Dell bring their manufacturing stateside. And HP, and everybody else.
Or just keep singling Apple out, that makes sense.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:27 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Actually TVs have almost no margins.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
An Apple TV would. Adding Siri, Facetime, Apple TV, and unibody aluminum cladding might cost them an extra $150, but consumers would gladly pay a $500+ premium for it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yep, because it doesn’t just become a TV anymore. Apple won’t go into an industry without profits with the exception of iTunes which supports the entire ecosystem but yields very little profits.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually they do, it’s the resellers like bestbuy etc that sell at razor thin margins. They make most money from people that buy the Monster Cables accessories.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The thing is, Apple is actually in a pretty good position to be building smart TVs, for a somewhat reasonable cost; and not because they’re one of the richest companies in the US.. The secret is in the iTunes ecosystem; something with heavy ties to the iTunes Store will add another incentive to get in, adding to the revenue stream. Imagine, a TV with surround sound receiver hardware built right in, where it’s easy to rent or buy music, videos, and maybe apps. It ties into iTunes (probably the iCloud at this rate too) for easy access to content from libraries; without a box. It’s something, I think, that Apple would heavily embrace. If they want to simplify the setup and will make good money on it; chances are, they are going to do it.
Unfortunately, it would probably ship with very few inputs.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Apple already knew. They didn’t get up there riding on the crest of the wave, looking down on all the also-rans by luck. Smarts, and the will to do what’s gotta be done to get around the “money men” and create great products. That’s what got them there, and while that is maintained, their position will be too. There appears to be no-one with the philosophy/structure to challenge this in the near future.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:30 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Because they can make it good with that price.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So the description is basically a dumb TV plus an iTV ($99) + Siri ($25/year???) and the opportunity to sell you movies and shows at existing prices.
If the dumb TV part costs them $499 at wholesale, $1200 leaves them a nice, fat margin in line with their other margins, and maximizes the volume. $2500 is utterly uncompetitive unless we’re talking some much huger screen than my home would hold.
I don’t see them taking the Amazon/Fire route of selling at cost — they just don’t seem to do that, and it’s not yet clear how well that works out for Amazon in the long term, anyway — but your numbers seem just ridiculously out of the ballpark.
Anyway, guess we’ll see!
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is all you need to know that the TV will cost at least $2K. http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is a 2560×1440 monitor, not a boring old 1920×1080 1080p display. We’ve seen recently that 1080p screens (due to volume) are much cheaper to produce than higher resolution monitors. I believe that The Verge recently featured a “good deal” on a $300 27-inch 1080p monitor from Dell if I am not mistaken. That’s a $700 difference in price right there. Let’s not forget the Thunderbolt capabilities (including Ethernet, USB, and FireWire port replication) — that has to be factored into the cost here.
Posted on Jan 09, 2012 | 4:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Even at a price point under $2000, I doubt an Apple branded TV would be a runaway success. People that would be into an Apple tv most likely already have a Xbox, PS3, Roku, etc. that would offer all of the services except itunes.
Unless Apple is going to bring the first 2k or 4k mass produced television to the market, which I’m sure we all doubt, what’s the point?
I do think that this set will succeed where Google TV failed: “cord-cutters” with money that already receive most of their television through itunes or legally streamed/downloaded content.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
you guarantee it? people also predicited the ipad would be $1,000 and it’s base price was 1/2 of what was predicted. So just wait and see.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
People guessed the iPad was gonna cost $1,000 because they had no idea what it was gonna be.
But people know how much TVs cost today…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, and depending on features and quality, they cost $500-$1500 for a 42" set. That’s a huge disparity. I don’t see your point.
Macs cost significantly more than MOST PCs, and that doesn’t stop them from being some of the best selling machines on the market.
With the $99 ATV, the $99 iPhone 4, and the $499 iPad, it’s obvious that Apple now sees the value of offering their products at competitive prices. They’re not going to price a 42" TV at $2K.
The other thing I find obvious, that everyone misses, is that they’re not going to do away with the $99 Apple TV just because they start making a premium display with it built in. TVs are a once-every-5+-years type of purchase, whereas a $99 STB that offers myriad new content delivery options, and a realistic alternative to cable TV is impule buy territory. $99 is less than most people spend on their monthly cable/internet bill. It’s a no brainer that they would want to keep this product to continue to build their userbase.
I really don’t understand the skepticism. Build in Facetime, build in Siri, and build in Apple TV, wrap it in aluminum, and sell the 46" version for $1K-1200, and a 55" version for $1500-$2K. You guys are on crack if you don’t think such a product would become THE best selling TV in history.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think most of the wow factor is going to come from software that has mostly been R&D’d for iOS. There really doesn’t need to be any particularly expensive tech going into these products that would drive the price up.
I agree on the price – $1000-$1200 for the ‘main’ model.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Tablets existed before the iPad, so people PREDICTED the iPad would cost $1,000 because they’re the sort of people who think Apple is just going to assign an arbitrary 200% price hike to anything they make.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they can get people to line up to buy a tv, no matter what the price, I will not say anything about that company again.. I won’t speak its name.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
this will have to be really good to pull me away from my Netflix.
which I can get on. my iPhone, my Android tablet, my Xbox, my dad’s Xbox, my mom’s iPhone, anywhere, etc, etc.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 8:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Also, you can’t recommend your own comment. cheese and rice!
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 8:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think they should stick to making the stand alone apple TV do all this stuff, putting the guts into the TV makes it a short term purchase. The average consumer isn’t going to replace a TV every few years, it’s too expensive. the guts will get outdated fast, and unless they put something Intel or AMD in it, gaming is going to look dated next to the WiiU, and the upcoming Xbox and ps3 revisions.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How is that different from the current Smart TVs on offer?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The current Smart TVs suck.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:02 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Man, do they!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The thing needs to be usable without a comp sci degree.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why would it need to pull you away from Netflix? The point of Apple TV isn’t to create content, but to plug into all of the various streams, including broadcast, cable, and streaming services. Netflix would presumably be there, right next to something like HBO Go. Presumably.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:38 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
this was helpful, thanks.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Xbox 360 does this really well right now, not sure what else apple could bring to the table.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A lot of people don’t own an Xbox.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Also requires a gold subscription. You have to subscribe to one service in order to subscribe to another. I don’t see my parents doing that anytime soon.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A $99 price point? More content delivery? Facetime? Siri? The ability to use your iOS device as a super remote?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think that’s a comment that only makes sense if you like to play video games on a 360. Also, while Microsoft has some content agreements, it’s not many, certainly not as many as this article is implying Apple is working on.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why would you assume an Apple-made TV wouldn’t have Netflix built in?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait until Feb 2012 when Netflix’s deal with Starz expires and suddenly have far less decent content. Whenever I have trailed Netflix (twice now since they sent me an email asking me to try them again), I have always had two complaints:
1. Content selection was poor (most good stuff from Starz)
2. Streaming quality was questionable despite my 20Mpbs Internet connection.
Even if you are getting quality streaming, the selection of content is lacking. Apple has to solve this problem too since I still find some content that I want is missing from iTunes.
Posted on Jan 09, 2012 | 4:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope it has cable card support
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 8:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why would you hope that Apple does something that already exists?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
One MORE THING:
Lost, Season 7. Only on iTunes.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, Apple has never claimed to have invented or perfect anything that existed before they decided to do it…like Virtual Desktops…
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would be shocked if it has CableCARD and Tuning Adapter support. It appears to be just an ATV integrated into a TV with voice search added.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We know very little about what this device would actually be. However, the current Apple TV doesn’t have any of the partnerships referenced in this article, so if these rumors are right, this new TV would be quite different from what’s currently being offered.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just??
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It won’t do CableCARD, but it will probably have a coax input for OTA HD, and it will definitely have HDMI ports (and probably Thunderbolt).
It won’t just be a TV with voice search. It will be wrapped in unibody aluminum, it will be 1" thin, it will have an IPS (or otherwise very high quality) display, it will have inbuilt Facetime, and it will be completely controllable from all iOS devices, and it will be a device that finally allows couch potatoes to cut their cable service without going through content withdrawal.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hope it’s got Angry Birds.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
And a touchscreen!
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Could be a very risky move on their part. Or another industry-changing move. Gonna take an incredible amount of finesse to remake a 70 year old industry.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:06 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
They won’t sell anything if they’re going with Apple -type pricing on the things, except to the iSheep maybe.
That better be one hell of a display, and I mean visually, not the electronics inside of it.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This must be a backlogged comment from the early 90’s.
Welcome to the Internet, btw.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:24 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
are you from the past?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:43 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Apple has “Apple-type pricing” on all their products, which are actually selling better than pretty much anything else on the planet in their respective fields. So your whining makes absolutely no sense at all. If you look at the FACTS, you will see that Apple sells hundreds of millions of devices using “Apple-type pricing”. Assuming they won’t sell anything using their own pricing scheme flies in the face of what’s going on all around you.
Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand and look around.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If whatever the hardware component of this is isn’t available as a $500-or-less standalone box for your existing TV, color me skeptical. Unlike an iPad which was a genuinely new kind of device and at a price point that most people could justify, an HDTV is something most people who’d be interested in this have already spent a lot of money on. I doubt they’ll be thrilled to spend even more on Apple’s premium version, even if the content delivery and interface is great.
Seriously, folks, just build an HTPC. It’s not that hard and it does everything.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Even at $500, unless it bears the name Playstation or Xbox, nobody’s going to buy a standalone box that plugs into their TV, even if it gives handjobs. The market has clearly shown this over the last decade.
Except I don’t have any clue where you get this $500 from. Apple is dedicated to this $99 price point. Maybe they’ll offer a first-party FaceTime peripheral for an extra $50-100, but there’s no way they’re dumb enough to try and sell a $500 box.
And lol if you think that building an HTPC is a viable solution for all of the 300million TV watchers in this country. I built an HTPC about 5 years ago, and it’s been a regrettable decision (both financially and as far as enjoyable use is concerned) ever since. People want a silent, low power consumption, diminuitive box (or even better, built completely into the TV) to control their system with their iPad/iPhone, or with a remote control. Who the hell wants to use a keyboard and mouse?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:50 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I bought an Asus EEE Box years ago (3 maybe), hung it on the VESA mounts behind my TV, and installed XBMC. It’s quiet, consumes very little power, and is small and out of the way. I can control it with my iPhone if I want to, but I could also control it with Android or Windows Phone. I didn’t bother adding a tuner to it though.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You have obviously never met an average person who is completely incompetent with configuring home entertainment systems and HTPCs.
If Apple can include everything from the AppleTV, plus work out content deals with all the major broadcasting company, it will eliminate the needs for cable or satellite subscriptions and it will do it in a way that aligns with the pre-established iTunes infrastructure and takes no extra steps to set up.
If you think people aren’t going to pay money for that, you’re insane. People don’t WANT to build their own HTPC. People don’t WANT to tinker with PCs. People don’t WANT to configure 4 different boxes to work together.
People want to plug it in, and have it work. That’s it. Done. Why do you think Apple products are so popular?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
so a Kinect ripoff…
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:15 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Ever heard of the Wii?
*ducks
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
please, I was making gestures way before the kinect.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I’m making one right now.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:06 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Any existing TV manufacturer CEOs out there who’ve already said “Apple won’t be able to make any waves in the TV business because they’re the newcomers” that we can mock in 6-12 months when they’re ultimately proven wrong?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:15 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I would like Apple to be successful here, but maybe I think more people will do like their PC’s with Windows, and go the Microsoft route with the xbox even though is may cost more over time.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Xbox 360 isn’t just a video player though so costs aren’t apples to apples :)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is going to be a tough one though. A TV isnt $200 on contract. Its 1000+ dollars.
TV manufacturers are having a tough time selling TV’s now because the HDTV’s they got when it was all the rage are still good enough today.
Best of luck to them. But I wouldnt be happy having to replace my entire TV just because the newer model has a quad core processor and therefore is required for the newest features just a year after purchasing my Apple TV. I would prefer my television to be a “dumb display”. Just display things well. Ill decide what to display. This of course supports advancements to their existing Apple TV model. Im okay upgrading an Apple TV every year since its only 100 bucks, but not 1000+ bucks every year or having to go through the hassle of selling my existing set to get the new one.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple will offer the $99 STB alongside its new display that has this functionality baked in. Win win.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, but Sir Howard did say something along the lines of them ‘cracking it too’. Maybe they have.
It’s funny how the media have a boner for what’s happening in TV tech now. All because of a quote in the Steve Jobs biography. Would be sort of amusing if that quote wasn’t fully understood by the author (the book is not without some glaring technical errors) and Apple really have few plans other than a moderately upgraded Apple TV box. Tech blogs would be in meltdown.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This interest in TV tech is not a result of the biography. It is a direct result, of several first generations of Set Top Boxes: Boxee Box, Google Tv, AppleTV, Roku and pretty much everything down to the level of bargain BlueRay players all having streaming included in them. The success of Netflix alone is enough to bubble the tech issue to the surface.
XBMC on the orignal Xbox did more than Microsoft was wiloiung to or could do. People were making it happen on their own, 7 years ago, and it wasn’t because of a biography. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, squandered any chance they had at being the first to market. The latest Xbox upgrade is too little too late, especially after 5 years or so of sitting there in the marketplace.
This is the people demanding this, not the other way around around. Apples interest with the TV is the same as with the creation of the iPhone. People will most likely only have one device. If the TV is running another OS then their tied in ecosystem starts to crumble. With phones they would replace the mp3 player, and the iPod, in that people wouldn’t carry two devices. And so it goes…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So will this be a product that integrates an Apple TV into an actual TV or something more?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It will do that, plus it will offer Facetime and Siri. Fret not, though: Apple won’t be killing off their $99 STB. They know it’s necessary, in order for them to gain any sort of traction with this new content delivery system.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My guess: It will look like an Apple Thunderbolt Display witha built in Apple TV that will be controlled by an ipod touch/iphone (Touch possibly included?) It will cost $999 for a 32inch.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
your guess is wrong.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:46 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
It will also have FaceTime, Siri, and unibody aluminum. It will have IPS or some other awesome looking display tech, it will be less than 1-inch thick. Touch might possible be included, especially since it might be necessary for Siri.
I think they won’t make a 32-inch. Maybe 42, 52 (and possibly also a 62"?). Price will probably range from $1K to $3K. It will be a beautifully crafted piece of hardware, and humans around the world will be in awe of its beauty.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t see the point of face time in a TV. We don’t sit as close to our TV’s as we do our computer screens. If we’re sitting across the room, you’re going to need a good HD camera to make it remotely worthwhile. That’ll add to the cost if the device for a niche feature. imo.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know about that. Video conferencing is unnatural when you’re holding the device in your hands, IMO. I guess we’ll just have to see. At the very least, they should offer a peripheral.
I still cannot belive that there’s no video Skype functionality with the Kinect. Seriously wtf.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I want this technology NOW!
So I’m buying an Xbox 360 with Kinect.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:18 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
When is MS going to allow for video skype over Kinect?
/example 28528 of why MS doesn’t have their shit together.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, Xboxes come with TVs and the entire iTunes infrastructure built in now?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple’s problem is still the content owners – the studios & networks are scared stiff that Apple will have them over a barrel like they they do the record companies.
Personally I think that Apple should think about setting up some sort of content financing company – finance films and shows from the get go with the proviso that it will be available from release on Apple TV & iTunes. They could also start bidding for part of the online rights for sports.
They certainly have the cash for it & it may not actually cost that much (financing films gives good tax write-offs).
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:19 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
But like the Mac (early versions of iPod), only a handful of people actually have AppleTV, so they can promise the Studios that this won’t massively cannibalize their business…
….until AppleTV sells its first 100MM units.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I can’t believe the content providers would make the same mistake twice. On second thought…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 3:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re right. They’re stupid .. but they can’t possibly be THAT stupid. As they say, you can only skin a cat once :P
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Would Apple be able to license the content and set up their own iTunes subscription packages. Perhaps stick some iAd’s in the shows to generate revenue, cut the content owner into those profits to bring the content cost down….. ?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can resume from the same point on multiple devices with XBMC because I set it up to use mySQL rather than its’ own internal database, so I can start something on my laptop and finish it on my TV and so on. I am just going to assume the viewing progress of each show will be in iCloud or something. It’s a nice feature but not something that is “not currently available” (unless they just mean on Apple TV).
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Maybe they need to clarify, not available (to the masses). Us geeks have been doing this for years. I can guarantee that whatever Apple comes out with will not amaze us. We will have seen it all already. However it would have involved hacking, setting up services, maybe even some soldering (I had to do this to my original xbox to get XBMC).
Currently for normal people all they know is the crappy cable box that came when they got the service. Some may have an Xbox, PS3 or maybe even an Apple TV that their kids set up. But to most people this will be new and exciting. Not because the technology is new and exciting, but because they can use the technology for the first time without any effort. That is what will be new and exciting (plus Siri for the tech blogs to have something to write about).
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What would they gain from entering the TV market really? It’s a pretty cutthroat low margin business and TV’s aren’t exactly ugly or hard to use for most people.
Sticking an already mediocre product in what is probably going to be a mediocre TV probably isn’t going to sell that well.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“What would they gain from entering the TV market really? It’s a pretty cutthroat low margin business and TV’s aren’t exactly ugly or hard to use for most people.”
You mean like phones were five years ago?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:37 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
How were phones 5 years ago low margin? Smartphones in particular. Treos generally sold for $550 unlocked like a lot of smartphones today and cost $199 on contract like most Smartphones today, same with BlackBerry’s.
Did iPhones help push people towards smartphones faster? Yes. But they didn’t manage to make it higher end, that’s why they stopped selling it at $600 on contract shortly after release.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phone-shipments-hit-highs,-but-profits-sag/2100-1039_3-6127736.html
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I replied to your second question. Phone manufacturers in 2006 were having profit issues.
Your first question is the only important one. “What would Apple gain…”. I’m honestly surprised you needed to ask.
The iPod didn’t appear in an empty playing field, there were plenty of music players. Even some good ones. Apple presumably thought they could do better and make some money in the process. The cynical among us may feel that the latter was the only goal. The iPod was a great success by anyone’s measure.
The iPhone came on to a scene of a zillion phones. Phones that many people considered good enough. Or to use your words “not exactly ugly or hard to use for most people”. Apple apparently thought they could do better. I think Apple made the first phone that the average person actually wanted to own. The rest is history.
That brings us to television. Here we are again – it’s seemingly good enough – “not exactly ugly or hard to use…”. And you still don’t think Apple can improve upon it? Seriously?
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Most people didn’t own an mp3 player. Most people didn’t own a smartphone. Everyone owns a television. It all comes down to whether the content providers and cable companies are willing to play ball.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 3:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they can make something that will replace Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu+, and Cable and make it cheaper than sign me up… but, I think it would be a pretty tough feat.
Then again… in early 2007 all I wanted was a Palm Treo. What a difference 4 years makes.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple TV already offers Netflix. It’s a major selling point for the device. I don’t think they’ll kill it off, but I’d imagine they introduce content packages that make you want to give up your Netflix account anyway – and if they don’t, then they won’t succeed.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple could still make their TV, but I would like Apple to make the brains of the ‘Apple TV’ as a module which can be detached and replaced when new technology comes out. It is a waste to replace the whole TV in 2 yrs just to have updated electronics.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“It is a waste to replace the whole TV in 2 yrs just to have updated electronics.”
Normal people don’t do that. My newest computer is from 2009.
Sure, the geek part of me wants a Macbook Air, but there’s just no justification for it (aside from pure unadulterated techno-lust).
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:51 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yea, so is mine. And my TV is still a CRT !
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 9:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The newest computer in my house is from June 2007. When people get mortgages and children, things like the upgrade cycle become irrelevant until you simply cannot run new software. Until that point, having a cash safety net sitting in the bank earning interest is far better than have a new computer on my desk, especially if the interest rates rise.
I hope to buy a new computer next year, or maybe the following year.
(sigh)
If Apple release a TV, I’ll be waiting for our current TV to die before even looking at the market. Even then, it’ll need to be something really amazing (unlike the 3D turkey).
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:57 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The “new technology” is almost completely on the software side of things, and Apple products continue to be blessed with frequent significant updates for years after their release.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Firmware updates.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they make a TV I hope they also make a set top box for other TV’s
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah something small, black, HDMI & optical outs, A4 processor. Oh wait…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:14 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If apple can get live sports and upgrade season pass so that it allows you to watch shows as they air, I will gladly give up my move away from their ecosysthem and buy their box/tv
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Looking at their track record if any company can change an industry it’s apple (Music, phone, tablet)
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:23 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I predict that whatever it is (a TV or another set top box), it will include the obvious iCloud/Siri integration but the real hook will be an exclusive deal with, among others, HBO for access to their content via subscription without the requirement of also having a satellite/cable subscription. KISS and all that.
Anyway, just my $0.02…
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 10:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple uses the WSJ not to leak new products but to manage expectations. It may sound like dishonest reporting, but that’s the play. Get the WSJ to report something very modest (even drab), then when Apple actually brings out their latest ‘creation’ it’s a hundred times better. In other words, I wouldn’t put too much stock in what the WSJ says. These kinds of things are just meant to throw off Apple competitors/copycats.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Good point. Remember the $1000 iPad price the WSJ reported? Same thing.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This works out for me, I already yell at my TV. I don’t know how I’ll feel when it talks back though.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:04 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Finally, the first $2000 50" TV that’s portable.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A TV with a handle. Magical.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple TV Handle™ optional.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The magic question:
Would you pay $4,500 for an Apple tv with:
2k resolution, anamorphic widescreen tv at 56 inches
built-in Apple Tv and Airplay
no included remote – download an app for iPhone, ipad, ipod touch,
free access to some ota channels, ability to buy some cable channels a la carte
option of buying a wireless dongle that allows use of tv as a computer monitor
access to certain movies and shows, at a premium of course, before they hit other outlets.
Posted on Dec 18, 2011 | 11:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
nope..
Apple would have to subsidize my bandwidth or start their own cable company to do that. Plus i can do all of that with an Xbox and a modest media center pc
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wouldn’t pay even $2,500 for a TV with those capabilities, and I’m a big Apple fan.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nobody’s buying a $4,500 TV.
They need to aim for the $1K-2500 range, in order for this to be successful, and they will.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People buy tv’s and projectors that cost more than $5,000 everyday. The problem is that for Apple to release a tv, it has to offer something(in performance or features) that the competition does not. A $2000 set that differentiates itself by including a built-in AppleTv, Apple’s version of Kinect and airplay in a 42in – 46in set is not going to cut it.
If Apple does make a tv, it needs to be radically different than already established competitors on the market and offer something that is not available in other sets.
A 2k resolution set at 50in – 60 inches would solve that and allow fora hefty profit margin. They are going to need the profit margin because I only see Apple selling tv’s through big box retailers or home delivered through orders placed on-line or through their stores.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 12:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No. And there’s no reason to think Apple would release a TV priced like that either. You’re just doing the “I’ll just arbitrarily mark it up by 300%” thing, which is pretty tired at this point. No doubt if Apple makes a TV it will be good quality, but they don’t price themselves out of the market. That’s where most people make the mistake, they think good quality = overpriced.
It’ll be comparable to other TVs on the market at the same size and same quality. That’s the whole point.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple has a track record of releasing exorbitantly priced 1st generation hardware. Lets not forget that when the first iPod was released, it cost $500 and only worked with macs.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 12:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why the hell would they make a TV? Unless I am sorely mistaken, I don’t think people change out TV’s that much. And most people are already set with a TV. And people aren’t going to flock to buy the latest and greatest TV every year, so they don’t get to keep selling subtly improved products to the same consumers every season. This goes against every apple strategy except the “one magic box” concept. I don’t believe that’s strong enough to overcome the business model problems. They’ll just update their Apple TV device to do better stuff.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People don’t buy a new $1500 iMac every year either, so according to your logic, Apple will be discontinuing those soon?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This is an easy one. People DO upgrade their Mac every 3 years, because old chips, and low RAM limits start to slow everything down. TV’s don’t have this problem. Hence some people stare at the same TV for ten years. $99 Apple TV is more interesting than an actual screen. Or Apple could sell 30" screens (like they already do) with built in iOS.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s only a matter of time before the upgrade cycle comes to TVs IMO… it’s all about the apps b
New TVs come with apps. What happens in a few years when Twitter/Facebook/Flickr aren’t so hot anymore and the new hotness is out? Yeah, you could upgrade firmware but that can only work for a while. Eventually, you need newer hardware.
Think of it as either a TV with a built-in HTPC or as a HTPC with a built-in TV (think big ass iMac,… or something). Either way, the HTPC part will need to be upgraded at a much more frequent interval. The main thing holding this back is the price of the display but maybe that has been solved?
Then again, maybe I just don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. Anything is possible. :)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 12:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I totally get what your saying. If there truly was a market for this we would see electronics stores all over the place where TV’s take up nearly half their floor space. No electronics stores anywhere ever sell TVs it just a waste of a market.
/sarcasam
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ve had this gut feeling that they’re going to partner with direcTV on this. The average internet speed in the US is like 5 Mbps, so IPTV just isn’t very viable, especially considering most homes would need multiple streams going at once and then some bandwidth left over.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually I think they’re doing it so people can get away from DTV. They want people to be able to use the Apple infrastructure to subscribe to all the shows they want without being tied to broadcast schedules. And when you pick and choose your content like that, it becomes much cheaper. That’s why they’re making content deals with the providers themselves, not with resellers like DTV.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yawn. I have a Ceton card, a PC and Ceton card that delivers all my channels to my TV on my XBox right now. Its called Media Center it came out in 2001. I just hope that Media Center evolves into the XBox Dashboard interface which hopefully comes in Windows 8. The other great thing would be to store my recorded TV files to the cloud.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So if it’s so great, then why isn’t Ceton selling these by the tens of millions? Oh yeah, because it’s a tech enthusiast device that requires know-how that about 95% of the population lacks. If it works great for YOU, I’m happy for you, but the masses would NOT be happy with having to piece together a rig just to watch TV.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Who says I put I pieced together a rig? I installed a Ceton card which took me about 20 minutes and Verizon had to activate the card. It was actually much more simple than I thought.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is there really a problem for Apple to solve in the TV business? I’d rather have a separate box that I can upgrade, move, exchange for something else, and connect that to my ‘dumb screen’, than to buy an Apple television for $4000.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So buy the $99 Apple TV to connect to your ‘dumb screen’. Apple’s not going to kill this product off just because they start making a display that costs 40 times (massive hyperbole?) as much. Duh.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If its a single own tv Apple builds then it will not be anywhere close as much a s a success as the iPhone or iPad was.
The iPad was a great success because there was no tablet yet before which brought intuitive smartphone multitouch UI and optimized for ARM architecture OS and apps together in such a nice package before.
The iPhone was such a success because Apple had a great package and many, many people upgrade their phones every 1-4 years and then also get the new ones subsidized with contracts. And ideal field for Apple.
With TVs its pretty much the opposite: Its an extremely saturated market and also one where people don´t get the devices subsidized and also one where most people usually only buy a new device every 5-10 years in average. So not easy at all for a new player to get a foothold in there at all.
Apple would do much better if they made partnerships with tv manufacturers to get the Apple tv (small box) integrated into as many tvs as possible.
They´d also do well in making the airplay software functionality accessible on as many software and hardware platforms as possible asap.
Apple is intending to tie users to their platforms as closely as possible by making things like facetime, airplay, iCloud etc not cross platform but its a double edged sword: some users will get tied closer to Apple, others will over time get annoyed by the closer and closer getting ties.
What´s the main thing so powerful about Google services? You can access them on so many platforms in so many ways.
Google has its own share of issues when its about getting Google TV going, but yeah, the rumored one actual tv build by Apple thing doesn´t sound like a much more reasonable approach either.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Everything you said is just dead wrong. It’s about building good products. Period. Google’s issue with Google TV is that it sucks.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 4:05 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
ok, so your argument is “you’re wrong”? Hm.. I have an actual argument for you: Compare it with the Mac OS vs Windows PC wars. Apple had great quality products (most times), still MS pushed them into a niche corner for a long time. Something similar could happen and does happen in the mobile market (despite the mass market contender for Apple being Android right now) and one can already see that while Apple is still making larger profits, there already more and more Android devices out there than iOS ones in the smartphone category. With things like the kindle fire something similar is on the horizon for the tablet market. So yeah, App,e’s insular setup is usually only helping them for a few years while they often help define platforms and device categories, afterwards their manners more than once lead to them becoming the niche platform.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is kinda true. Apple doesn’t try to lock anyone in. They just make sure that their products all work well together. This is the “It just works” approach that they talk about. They have no interest in working with other manufacturers on integration and having to make trade-offs that they don’t want to. This is also the reason you see people buying all of Apples products. Once you have one device set up the rest are the same. Have your media in iTunes, guess what, now you’re iPod, iPhone, iPad, and AppleTV are all just plug and play.
Now if you’re a gadget lover and have an Android phone, a Xbox media center, a windows PC, a HP tablet, and an iPod, then iTunes becomes a pain in the ass, as it’s just one more piece of software you need to manage.
It’s all a matter of perspective.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:49 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yeah, well,, yeah, there are several reasons for Apple doing it like that of course and you listed some good ones. The thing is i have a Mac, an iPhone, an iPad and an Apple Tv and those are all fun to use together most times, mostly when using them as Apple intended. It just can get really cumbersome as soon as one wants to use them together with non Apple devices or just something basic such as playing back some media formats Apple doesn’t want one to use or wanting other basic things like file system access on the iOS devices. Such things make me want to resist using iCloud, facetime etc where i get tied to the Apple ecosystem not working well on other machines even more. Its great i can throw a video or game screen onto the Apple tv from the iPad, but that the same doesn’t just work with every tv is super annoying, just as example.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
shrug Then don’t use them with non-Apple devices.
shrug Then don’t use non Apple approved formats.
shrug Then switch to Android.
Seriously, this isn’t hard. Either you like living in Apple’s universe or you don’t.
But I understand where you’re coming from.
What you like is how Apple’s products work together and amazingly well. But you also want your iOS device to support .mkv and every other geek format and usage scenario under the sun.
And what you really want is for all companies to be a bit more like apple and to come together with Airplay like solutions and iTunes like management, but in a way that’s more ‘open’ and that supports every format under the sun, including .mkv, .ogg, etc.
Mainstream ease of use with geeky options, basically.
Guess what? You can’t have it both ways.
Apple products work well because they limit what you can do. Other products don’t work so well because they don’t limit what you can do.
Sorry, but you have two choices.
Either live in Apple’s universe and have all your iDevices work magically well with each other, but with some limitations on use.
Or live in any of the alternative worlds, and have very few of your products work like magic with each other, but with absolutely no limitations on use.
You can see this difference most clearly with iTunes Match and Google Music.
One is for the mainstream, relatively automatic and just works for the most part by simply giving you a copy of the file on your computer.
The other requires you to know that Music Manager exists and to find it and download it, then spend days uploading your collection to Google (it took me 3 days on a fiber connection). And you better hope you know what a tag is and that you’ve got yours all cleaned up or else all your music is going to look like crap (I edit my tags whenever I get a new album of course).
You can also consider it as being the choice between being part of the mainstream and being a geek. And I’m not trying to be mean. I stayed away from iOS devices before the iPhone 4, because I couldn’t change my wallpaper and couldn’t multitask and couldn’t play .ogg (even though I had to go out of my way to support that format) and couldn’t mount it as a usb drive.
Basically for very geeky reasons.
But sooner or later, you get tired of customizing fluxbox and encoding all your .flacs as .oggs and managing your folders on your device by hand and trying to make all your dlna devices work together and getting absolutely nothing else done in the mean time (like actually enjoying your content).
So basically if you just want it to all work with minimal work, Apple is your only choice. And if you just want all the possible options and openness, then there are many choices out there for you. But don’t expect any of them to work as well as Apple’s own products.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:45 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Incorrect on the lock in. Why would Apple actively work to lock out other devices from being able to sync with iTunes? It is all about lock in. I watched the Palm Pre have sync, lose sync, have it again then lose it again. Try streaming your iTunes media to anything not Apple or iTunes.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 2:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It has to be good enough for people to give up other pay TV services, if it isnt, it will just be another media streamer
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 4:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is the nail on the head. It is about Apple using their clout to get good deals directly from content providers to make their content offerings attractive enough for people to drop their satellite or cable TV service. Full integration into the iTunes infrastructure and having it all built into the TV is just a bonus.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
lets see what we will buy from samsung in few years ;)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Please let it come in a add-on set top box also like the current apple TV… but who am I kidding? Obviously Apple will want end to end control, and that means the display too. Son of a.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Time for Samsung to go and register a patent for a “big rectangle with an AC cord, which displays images” before Apple does.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 1:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So far none of the Apple TV rumors I am hearing sound like a product that has “finally cracked the TV revolution”. Certainly none of them sound like a runaway success. A guy like me who is invested in the Apple iTunes and iOS ecosystems would likely buy one, but I think Apple needs something else up their sleeves to make such a product a hit. Personally, I don’t think Apple would let any of those secrets out yet which would mean the press knows nothing.
Posted on Jan 09, 2012 | 4:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.