Rumors of an Apple television have resurfaced with supply chain sources telling DigiTimes that they're starting to prepare components for 32- and 37-inch "iTV" sets launching in Q2 or Q3 of 2012. According to the Taiwanese publication, suppliers will begin preparing materials in Q1 to prepare for the mid-year production ramp up.
The mythical Apple television has been rumored for years, but picked up steam after Steve Jobs was quoted in Walter Isaacson's biography saying that he'd "finally cracked it." The Wall Street Journal recently weighed in with sources claiming that media executives were being briefed on a new Apple TV that can stream "shows, movies, and other content." The WSJ also reported on Apple's multi-million dollar investment in a Sharp plant that will manufacture LCD panels for the next generation iPhone and iPad, and the iTV too according to analysts.
There are 241 Comments. Add yours.
So smaller sizes than what “people” have now and using a name that has been trademarked and used by a TV company for years.
Yeah, I’m going to go with no.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:47 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
PPL WHAT DID I WRITE HERE SOME DAYS AGO :-D
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:57 AM EST reply Recommend (22) Flag actions
I’d have to agree with you. Don’t believe a single word of that piece on Digitimes. .
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:39 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yes Indeedy!
Everyone has already bought an over priced large screen monitor misrepresented to them as a HD-TV with virtually useless built in sound and inoperable tuners. Then we all had to go buy a cable-box-tuner/PVR and a decent sound system.
What added value could Apple possibly bring to that, customer abuse, clown show?
It makes a lot more sense for Apple to make - iPad3 + HDMI/Airplay Dongle – their new Apple TV play. (Or a new App-driven iTV)
Thus replaced Channels with Apps. This not only gives viewers smarter, easier, access to content.
Even more importantly, when Apps replace Channels the content providers get much more than just smarter 3rd party access pointers to their content. They get to build highly interactive smarts right into the content itself, empowering them with more direct control over market access.
This completely reframes the competition between content providers.
Smart interactive-content-behaviors become the new irresistible and unstoppable content market differentiators.
This is already sparking a new content-production-platform that more or less mandates most serious content producer to join in or die! Example – BBCs- iPlayer App
What does replacing the-Channel as Content-Platform with the-App as Content-Platform mean for content producers?
It means that smart-interactive-content possibilities and viewer relationship capture systems are then limited only by the content producers algorithmic / graphics imagination.
Oh – and one more benefit!
This helps, both content-producers and content-consumers, kneecaps those recidivist, monopoly, middlemen, gatekeeping, slackers in the cable and satellite industry that are so fond of running interference on our emerging integrated-media eco-system.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So you’re saying you would rather bend over and take it from Apple, because it’s not the same person that has been pounding you with fees.
Apple’s family first and controlling, often overly restricting, ways are not what I want as on my TV as an Adult who can make his own decisions.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As an “Adult,” what would Apple not let you do?
To your first sentence, yes. People are sick of Time Warner Cable overcharging and not allowing channel-specific purchases.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:31 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Let’s start with porn. We all know Apple isn’t going to allow anything pornographic on their “iTV” if it exists. I’m not sure what the folks in Cupertino or Steve in particular had against porn, but………
If I’m going to pay big bucks for a tv, I best be able to view porn on it and FAP til’ my little hearts content…. well, not my heart, but you know what I’m saying.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 6:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Looks like someone’s never used AirPlay … Apple doesn’t stop you from playing whatever you want, they just aren’t going to supply apps for it. Use the Internet like a normal person.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 8:58 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The App store already has games with adult themes, The Playboy App is also available. I think Apple would allow a streaming App from Vivid or a similar company if they made it available. They wouldn’t stick it on the front page or make it ‘App of the Week’ in the weekly mail-out, but they’d allow it. imo.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What makes you think we’ve bought monitors that have been “misrepresented” as HDTV? You realize that the HDTV spec has nothing to do with audio or tuners and simply refers to resolution, right?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
no, HD monitors would only refer to resolutions saying it’s an HDTV would imply it has an HD Tuner built in.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree. I just looked around the Amazon, WalMart, and Best Buy sites. There
area few 32" TVs in the best-sellers lists, but by far most are 40" or over. Plus, 32" is only slightly bigger than monitors (and iMacs) that Apple already sells. The size doesn’t make sense.The whole TV thing doesn’t really fit with Apple’s focus on ever smaller and lighter products. I would expect them to put more TV-like capabilities in the iPad before they started building hulking smart TVs. Or create something more like a tiny TiVo, but with AirPlay capability, so that you could easily watch recorded shows on your iPhone or iPad.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:53 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well you see, 37 inches is the perfect screen size for your viewing pleasure. Just like 3.5 inches is the perfect screen size for a touch screen phone. Apple knows what’s best
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Hahahaha +10
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:15 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
You realize that this is just an unsubstantiated rumor, right? Before you make snarky, sarcastic comments about Apple, you might want to at least wait for them to actually announce the product, because you’ll look pretty dumb if they don’t.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Why does the word “people” merit quotation marks?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:48 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I doubt Apple would just come out with a TV with just streaming it would probably contain an iOS variant dedicated to non touch-screen application otherwise I’ll have lost all hope in Apple.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 3:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh boy. That sounds like megafail coming our way. Nobody buys an HDTV under 42 inches except gamers who want a giant monitor on their desk. Not sure why Apple is doing a TV in the first place. Just supercharge that AppleTV.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:48 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Looks at the iPhone, the screen is tiny on that thing and people still mindlessly buy it because of the Apple logo on the back. I’m sure if this TV is sufficiently shiny and has a sufficiently large fruit logo people will buy it.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:02 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
That is not why people buy it. Keep telling youself that drone.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:16 AM EST reply Recommend (36) Flag actions
yes it is. Let’s be honest. there maybe something like 10% of the people who buy an iPhone because they buy into iOS and understand the system and like it. The rest buy it simply because Apple products are “Trendy”
Next time you go out and about and look at all the people who own iPhones. There is no way you can honestly say that 80 to 90% of those people did not buy the iPhone because it’s not “Trendy”
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:53 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You don’t get it, that’s merely a factor in Apple products. It’s not a fault of iDevices that some may find it trendy.
No one buys anything solely because it is trendy. You need a serious rethink in life and your motives if you do.
People buy iDevices because they aren’t overwhelmed with specs, it’s incredibly easy to use, yet very powerful, has the best app ecosystem, best upgrade promises, good design, great support, and so on.
Even if your crazy assumption that 90% of people buy iOS devices because they are trendy is true, you cannot prove that statement in any way without a widespread survey of some sort.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:10 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
All those 8 year olds that just got iPod Touch’s during Christmas really understand the specs of the iPod Touch. It’s not like they wanted one because all of their friends had one.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People don’t buy fancy German cars and Dyson vacuums because they work better than the competition. They are trying to keep up a persona and usually it does involve being considered “trendy”.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No actually Dyson vacuums are awesome and are actually the best.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“It is not Apple’s fault”, in fact it is in a way. Apple markets their lineup as such through media. You found genuine value in your purchase, you understand why Apple is better for you, but you’re not in the majority. The iphone for example will work reliably for all of them, but the majority that bought the iphone bought it because it was a “safe” option heavily marketed and trumpeted and not because they made a choice between two or three alternatives. Don’t worry we understand your reasons, there’s no reason to get “upset”.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not upset lol.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
How patronizing. Average people aren’t as dumb as you think.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:58 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I did not call them dumb. Not being interested in tech is not dumb. The iphone remains the most popular and recognizable smartphone worldwide. Going with the safest option on the market is not dumb. And you can’t go wrong with a perfectly reliable and sufficient smartphone as the iphone is.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 3:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I didn’t say you called them dumb, but you said they bought the iPhone without making a choice between several alternatives, which would make them really dumb. They may not make choices based on the same criteria that matters to you but they clearly make choices.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
no they don’t and you know it. Most buy it because " it’s like, it’s an iPhone, like it’s the best like right?"
Truth
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Far, far fewer people have any understanding of Android or buy an Android phone specifically because of Android. Your explanation for Apple’s success employs the same old boring circular logic. People by Apple products simply because they are trendy. But why are they trendy? Any answer that can be summed up as “because lots of people by them” is the wrong answer.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
while I’ll agree many people don’t know the ins and outs of android like many who are on tech sites like this, they do buy them due to choices of sizes, functionality, price, ability to customized, Of these have always been strong selling points of Android over the iPhone.
Little 14 year old Timmy want’s an iPhone for the same reason the A typical Soroity girls wants one. “it’s trendy”. To ignore this is to ignore reality.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s the same reason people choose iPhones, or Blackberries, or Nokia phones. If you want to continue to use circular reasoning and continue to comment on the iPhone as if your opinion is informed, you do so at your own peril. The iPhone isn’t popular because it’s popular. That doesn’t make any sense.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
sort of like Paris Hilton is famous for being famous?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except that’s not true. She’s famous for being related to the hotel magnate she shares a last name with, as well as making a sex tape. She’s even more famous for cashing that exposure in with a reality show and doing things to get her noticed by gossip magazines (people who want to avoid exposure by those magazines are well equipped to do so, contrary to popular belief). It’s not magic. Neither is Apple’s popularity. There are tangible reasons why they went from the edge of bankruptcy to being the most valuable American company, and it’s foolish to suggest otherwise.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re an idiot.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:01 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You MUST OWN stock in Apple otherwise there is no explanation for your rabid loyalty to a company that can give two craps about you.
The kook aid is strong with you .
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What makes you think I have “rabid loyalty?” Nothing I’ve said would indicate that. And by the way, everything Apple does shows they care about their customers, which is why so many people love Apple products. Other companies could learn a lot from them. And yes, I DO own Apple stock – so what?? Why do you care what stock I own, or what phone I use? I will never understand why people like you get so emotionally invested in hating Apple. It seems like an incredible waste of energy to me… But whatever makes you happy!
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
dude anyone who even remotley criticizes Apple you immedialty jump down theri throats, shooting insults etc.
You are rabid in your loyalty, you spew off more insults to anyone not serving at the altar of Apple but yet call everyon else a troll.
bizarre world you apple nut jobs live in.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you can argue about how large of a percentage it is, and it’s definitely not 0…but the truth is there are some people that buy apple products simply because it’s apple. i think steve jobs himself even acknowledged this. you know the people that continued to buy apple products during the 90s even when they weren’t that good…the people that kept apple afloat. sorry =/
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is the effect of marketing… it is nothing wrong about it. “You” saw the iphone at the Oscars, “you” bought it; “you” saw it endorsed in movies, news pieces, by fashionable personalities…again “you” bought it. Marketing is the soul of a business. In Apple’s case I would say that their profits come from the IT industry and from the fashion industry, not that it is a bad thing.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is called Brand Recognition. I am sure there are people buying Android because of the Google/HTC/Samsung brand. You can say the something about Coke or Disney … get over it.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
i’m not bothered by it, but it is true, some people buy apple products just because of the apple on the back. just like you said it “is called Brand Recognition”. It’s the other people that seem to have bought apple products that seem insulted by that statement. Why, i dunno.
It makes no difference to me one way or the other, it’s just weird that one person makes the statement, and many other posters are obviously bothered by it then you and id4andrei’s reply only reenforce what was originally said – it’s not uncommon and people do that. It’s not the biggest deal in the world, that people are bothered by it is more unusual.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow I was totally going to buy the “iTV” until I read your post. In fact I’m going to throw out all of my Apple gear because you’ve made me realize how stupid I’ve been. I only bought Apple products because they were shiny Thank you so much for posting those words of wisdom.
God bless you.
PS. Get back to Engadet!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:25 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (32) Flag actions
He was obviously talking about luddites and not about the readers of TheVerge. Get over yourself.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yup. It’s all about that logo on the back. And don’t forget that sticker that comes with it, too. I want to show off! That’s the ONLY reason I buy Apple products and not for their other reliable and consistent qualities.
Mo-ron.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:42 AM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Ah of course, the consistently awkward and pretentious qualities.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:02 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
go. away. forever. troll.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:15 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Funny thing is if it was a giant google logo on the front, dull, always force closed and had a horrible looking backside like most Android phones, you Google nuthuggers would buy it in droves. Or more like complain that its not free cause your minimum wage job at your local fast food restaurant isn’t paying you enough.
You trolls are strange. Not sure why your acne ridden fails boils up every time someone buys an Apple product. Is it cause you’re jealous? Does the shininess make you angry? Does the fruit logo make your little testicles shrivel in fear? As much as you don’t like Apple products, they are huge on reliability, quality, and overall customer satisfaction.
Cry about it, idiot.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:32 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
make it sound as if iOS devices don’t force close. Oh wait they don’t but they just close without notifying the user
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:07 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Mindlessly, huh? Why don’t you ask yourself this question: If bigger screens are the only thing that matter, why is it that no single larger-screen phone can outsell the iPhone?
Using your logic, we should be at close to 100% Android market share now since people only want larger screens. Right?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
No, people want shiny things, obviously.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nooooo no no. You don’t get to change the argument once it’s been made. This is about how people ONLY want bigger screens. As proven by the fact that the iPhone outsells every other single smartphone on the planet.
You do know what a fact is, right?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Just wait for the iShit fad to wear off.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s clear you don’t have either a point or a valid rebuttal. I use an iPhone because it’s reliable, works damn well, and it isn’t frustrating to use, and I have friends that feel the same way.
I don’t see why you’re so bitter, unless you have stock in a competitor of Apple’s, hmmn?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:54 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
He’s bitter for the same reason all fanboys are bitter of the competition. It’s the same mentality someone has with a favorite sports team: MINE IS BETTER!
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you trying to prove that you’re an idiot? Go look up the word “fad” in a dictionary and then come back and tell me the iPhone, whose sales are INCREASING every year, is a FAD.
Seriously, I don’t get the fascination you people have with trying to make yourselves look stupid.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Chris Hind: I see that you are butthurt about your decision to buy another brand and consequently trying to justify it to everyone on the internet. Here’s an idea: Buy whatever the hell you want, enjoy it, and don’t worry about what others are going to buy and why they buy it. Its not your money they are spending. Not everyone wants to be like Chris Hind. In fact, nobody wants to be a loser.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you seriously think people buy the iPhone for the logo you are a complete idiot. Sorry, but it’s true. That is such an incredibly dumb remark.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:58 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s very very true, you’re an idiot if you do not think sheep consumerism exisits.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s so sad that your kind has found their way to this website. It was such a relief for a few weeks not to have idiots like you trolling the comments making comments about fanboys, sheep, etc. Those are the arguments one resorts to when they have no argument, only silly emotion, namely hatred of a corporation, which is incredibly pointless and sad. Why don’t you go back to Engadget where you belong so the mature adults can have a conversation?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
oh please you are the biggest Apple tool that trolls any android article, Go back to allthingsd with the rest of the apple suck ups.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have never made any negative comments except in response to being called a “sheep” or “fanboy,”’ neither of which are true. You think you have me all figured out but you’re totally wrong. I own two Android devices, moron. I don’t just buy Apple products as your comment below says. I buy products from many different manufacturers and I would switch from iPhone in a second if a phone came out that better suited my needs. For some reason you carry around all these hateful stereotypes and apply them to anyone who buys an iPhone, which is really stupid. You don’t know anything about me.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And by the way, since far more people are buying Android and Windows, wouldn’t that make them (you) the sheep? Moron.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
the difference is I would buy a Samsung, a Moto, and htc heck even an iPhone if it made some changes. but you buy ONLY APPLE, that’s sheep
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nope, some just don’t like an ostentatiously large television that takes over an entire room that we also use for other things.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:38 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
“Not sure why Apple is doing a TV in the first place” They’re not doing a TV, digitimes is full of shit.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Like puzzlepunk said GTE!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m a gamer. I have a 55" LED on my desk.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That can’t be right.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Digitimes has been wrong a lot. WSJ less so, but those TV sizes are a little off of what consumers are demanding right now. I may be mistaken but I think people are buying bigger and bigger tv sets.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:51 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Consumers demanding? I love all the market researchers on here!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:11 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Yes, Digitime is like the US Readers Digest. Their rumor correctness ratio is quite low.
It’s amazing how many respectable news sites pick up their nonsense as fact. I thought that the Verge is different :-(
Nothing to see here folks.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:11 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I agree the sizes seem a bit weird, but I have to think that these are going to be “test balloons”?? Not sure I even believe myself. They also may be factoring in reasonable price points (for Apple that is) and any bigger TV with larger price tags may not be profitable for them. Just thinking out loud… We’ll see, i guess
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Since when has Apple delivered products based on consumer demand? After all, according to Steve, consumers don’t know what they want until you tell them what they want. So in truth, nobody wants a 42" TV, they really want a 32" one with better features.
That said, I still don’t believe an iTV is happening. At least not right now.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple is known not creating product based on consumer demand.
Apple is also known not creating stupid product that no one wants.
We will see but I don’t think iTV will be a TV.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
32 & 37? Really? Sheesh, and they say the iPhone screen is too small…
Wouldn’t a 32" basically be another iMac?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:53 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is the company that puts out the 27in iMac. This is BS.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You realize this is an unsubstantiated rumor, right.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just seen an Apple Patent application for this:
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:59 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Wow … Take my money now! I am sure it will be revolutionary and magical, do things that no current TV is capable of doing using standards like DLNA, WiFi … Needless to say, Samsung SmartTV will infringe on Apple iTV form factor and the use of “apps” on a TV device.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:01 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Do you realize e that your comment makes the web a worse place? Dwell on that for a second.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:07 AM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
but the thing is, he’s right.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Right in what way, exactly? Is Apple going to claim that they invented DNLA and wifi? Is the iTV going to have apps on it? It’s really the way you agree with blatantly stupid comments that’s funny to me. Anything to show how much you hate Apple, right?
If there was a way to show how much you hate Apple by punching yourself in the nuts with a hammer, would you do it? I bet you would.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:49 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
he’s right in every way. It’s you apple nut jobs that get yourself into all sorts of ectasy whenever apple comes out with a new product and it’s “go to feature” becomes some glorious, life altering feature, (even though it’s been out on other platforms for ages0 but yet when Apple does it, you find yourself holding your face in your hands crying in tears of joy,
Your’s such an over the top Apple fanboy, Apple could release the iPencil, charge $20 for it, and you would wait in line for days just to look at it. It would be magical, it would just work.
and the sad thing is. You know I’m right.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
In every way? You mean except the part where he thinks Apple is going to take credit for currently-existing things like DNLA. Right? Or do you actually think Apple is going to claim they invented wifi? Nobody is actually that stupid – besides you and aku – right?
Me pointing out that you’re an idiot doesn’t make me a fanboy. It just makes you an idiot. Haven’t you learned that by now?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
@boswd
To you and aku … why don’t you just go to Engadget … there are a lot of people like you that are always ‘right’. If you cannot contribute something intelligent then don’t.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You’re a moron.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know the truth bothers you. Let me guess the case on your iPhone has a circle cut on on the back so the apple logo is exposed. Correct?
*sigh" but hey you do look soo awesome with your iPhone, You make the whole world so envy. YOU HAVE ARRIVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So your phone has no logos on it? Really? It doesn’t say Google? It doesn’t have a manufacturer’s logo? It doesn’t have a carrier’s logo? My phone only has one logo, on the back… But who the fuck cares? The only people who care about Apple logos are haters like you. Every product on the planet has a logo. Grow up. And since more people buy Android phones, obviously YOU are the sheep. LOL. Moron. Go back to Engadget where you belong.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t buy cases that have cut outs so the logo can be exposed to everyone to let everyone now I have an Android phone
You guys are the biggest phoney’s.
I’ll do you a favor and maybe some a bit of money, nobody looks at you in awe because you have an iPhone. it’s not some privy club or a speak easy . It’s only a phone but you iNuts seem to think we are all unable to get one and we just so envy you .
Weird bizarre reality you guys live in.
by the way allthingsd with Walt and the rest of Apple worshippers are waiting for you to log back in.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ve never been to allthingsd, my case has no cut outs, and I don’t give a crap what people think of me based on my phone choice or anything else. You have made so many ridiculous assumptions about me and it makes you look really stupid because none of them are true.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is soo true. When this comes out, everyone will all be acting like Pentacostals on Sunday, rolling around speaking jibberish and licking the carpet and marvel at how Magical Apple iTV is .
I’m already starting to feel my lunch come up.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:10 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Well, I’ve heard that blatant stupidity can cause nausea, so that sounds about right.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:50 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
you’ll be the first in line to buy this untested and unseen.
true characteristics of a cult following.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
…except for the fact that I don’t buy anything untested and unseen, and you should probably grab a dictionary and look up the word “cult” since you don’t seem to know what it means.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t see much difference between the iSheep nut jobs like yourself, who would buy everything and anything apple than the people of Jonestown.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So you missed the part in my last post that specifically said I don’t buy anything untested and unseen? Not surprising, you’ve shown that your reading skills are, shall we say, below par.
The fact that you can’t see the difference between people who killed themselves for religious reasons and people who enjoy well made products, well, that’s probably something you should take up with a psychiatrist.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you genuflect when you enter the Apple store?
Do you make the sign of the apple on your heart?
Do you eat cut up apples and drink Apple Juice from a Chalice as part of the Eucharist?
Do you have icons of Steve Jobs in your house?
Something tells me you answer yes to all of the above.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really, that’s the best you can do? That’s just sad.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Also why don ’t you go back and watch the video of the opening of the Apple Store in Grand Central.
They showed a man actually crying. I’m sorry your cult is just plain bizzare.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So full out trolling now, huh? Well as long as you’re admitting you can’t counter anything I say, that’s good enough for me.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
seriously watch the video of it on YouTube of the opeining of the store.
Apple fans are just flat out bizarre. why on earth would fly across country to witness this opening and not even plan on buying anything. And why on Earth would another man start crying and so warapped up emotionally because of it’s opening.
This is not normal behavior. It’s very very close to cult like behavior And I’m being dead serious.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Who cares? Why are you so obsessed with Apple and the people who like them? I never watched this video in the first place, but you’ve obviously watched it several times. Why? It seems like you’re the only one here with a problem.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it was played everywhere.
a grown man crying because of an Apple store opening.
and you see no issues with that.
go back to allthingsd. you phoney
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ve never been to allthingsd. You keep making assumptions about me based on nothing, and it makes you look like a total ass.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So you still don’t know what a cult is, huh? Well maybe some day. Remember Zune Man? Got Zune tattoos all over himself? Well obviously that means all people who use Microsoft products are cultists. Thanks for helping me make that argument, I couldn’t have done it without you.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
grown man crying at the opening of an apple store.
You guys are just a bizzare cult.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And… which “guys” are you talking about, exactly? Care to be more specific, or are you just going to keep using straw men?
Posted on Jan 05, 2012 | 2:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
the market dictates 42’ is the minimum now; the TV should come out but with bigger screens
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:06 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I dunno, 42 feet is kinda big. I know I can’t stand anything smaller, but I’m not most people.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:16 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
What market is that? The only TV in my house is 32". Besides, this a rumor coming from a site that is at best 50/50 when it comes to Apple rumors.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:09 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If you only have one TV in the house… are you sure you have a lot in common with most American consumers who buy TVs? I’m not sure TV marketing folks are targeting your demographic.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know what the demographics are. Do most people have 40"+ TVs? I really don’t know. All I will say is that I do pay for all the cable channels because that is where the best shows and movies are.
That said, I do not channel surf. Maybe there are others that view the TV/living room as being the center of the household.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Depends on where you are. For many apartments 42" is the largest size you want to get. Even that can be pushing it.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that maybe Apple isn’t targeting the cheaper end of the market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is not the cheaper end. When a studio apartment in Park Slope can go for almost 2k a month in rent…
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:00 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Understood, but there’s still the 3 bedroom apartment market. Or even the people with bigass houses market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Gah, and a totally missed an opportunity to make a joke about a girlfriend saying something else was too small or big.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you’re living in a studio apartment, that is the cheaper end of the market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:27 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t know about you Americans, but I actually think the 32/37’s are perfect.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:07 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Bram, they are on a female…for a TV screen it’s small.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:10 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
True, true.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Too small
Presumably they’ll be high resolution so the viewing distance will be about 3 to 5ft.
Either BS or doomed to fail as a result, maybe not fail because the iSheep will quite happily watch TV through a pair of binoculars if it means they get an Apple logo on it.
Also the iTV name wouldn’t be allowed in the UK so Apple will have to split the branding & I can’t see them doing that
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You forget it will be able to “stream shows, movies, and other content.” … unheard of before!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To be fair Smart TVs at the moment are shite. Not that you can’t fix that with a $99 box of your choosing.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sony’s smart tvs have the most compelling range of content so far & pretty sure the entire target demographic for an Apple TV already has either a PS3, 360 or AppleTV already underneath their 42"+ TVs
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:21 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
it’ll be so magical
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Going to have to agree with this. I own my fair share of Apple products but own a 55" tv soooo this product is going to have to bend spacetime to impress me if it’s 37".
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow, I thought your breed of idiot was stuck on Engadget, but apparently you’ve found your way here. Sad.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
why because we don’t worship apple.
allthingsd is calling all phoney’s come in Starxd’s
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That sh*t cray
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:11 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
At first they have to find it.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Great news. Most important thing is the ease of use. That will be the most important factor.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
TVs too hard to use?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:13 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Way too hard. Seriously.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:13 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Have you seen the remotes these days? That’s fucking rocket science for most people.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:45 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
And what a sad statement that is for the most difficult task in someone’s life.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not really. No electronic appliance needs to be difficult to use. If it is difficult to use then the designers were lazy; it is as simple as that. We need to hold them to higher standards rather than developing a superiority complex because we can put up with their crap.
Personally, I would like to verbally abuse every person who ever had a hand in developing the XMB interface, modern TV remotes, and people who design microwave interfaces.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My mum & grandparents have been able to use a TV for decades without phoning for me help every 2 mins like when their iPod Touch threatens to delete things when syncing or iTunes has yet another update for the 4th time in 2 days
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:19 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Success wil depend on price and in this area competition is very hard. So if Apple come with high prices like they do usually i doubt they can do something !
Btw i really don’t care i prefere 10x to plug a computer to my TV !
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m going with a no.
Apple could have done this before and they have the AppleTV. I don’t see a reason for Apple to sell an overpriced monitor when they can sell a $99 box that does the same thing.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As someone else told me, insane profit margins.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:43 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I entertained the thought that maybe the screen sizes would be smaller like this if it was a touch screen – but even the new Microsoft Surface is 40 inches. Of course it is also $8K.
I can’t see the point of it as a TV but you never know… maybe that’s where the 37" and $2K rumours came from?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder if Samsung will be sending them of list of ways they should make it. It better not be black and rectangular!
I still don’t really believe they are making it. People do love a good rumor though.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:21 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
They already sell an uber expensive 27" monitor. What they could have possibly figure out to make ppl buy a tv that will be almost the same size and sure a few times more expensive? I know Steve was a genius but this report seems to be a scam from any point.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dell also sells an uber expensive 27" monitor :\
Both monitors (same panel) are totally worth the price :\
Also, why are people wildly speculating on price? Apple has never priced themselves out of the market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:10 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Well, it is kinda ridiculous that you can buy a 24" monitor around $250, then when you start looking at 27" monitors, they’re over $900. It’s cheaper to buy 3 24" monitors than it is to buy one 27"!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sorry, but this article, to me, is the most telling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/business/tv-prices-fall-squeezing-most-makers-and-sellers.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
The margins are awful, the competition is intense, people upgrade their sets about every 7 years (and most have done so recently), and it’s hard to believe people are going to completely revamp their setups to accommodate a TV that will cost a lot more. The big utility that Apple can provide (streaming, voice control, etc) can easily be integrated into an improved Apple TV set top box. No reason to hang an albatross around a very successful company’s neck by getting into the terrible TV business.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:22 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Would the same rationale apply to the PS3 or XBox 360? Many years between purchases, non upgradable etc..
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It does.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PS3 and Xbox360 are low-profit, and were actually loss-leaders for significant portions of their lifespan. The real place where money is made is selling 1st party games, licensing and royalties from 3rd party titles, and subscription services like XBL Gold.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:24 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
no, because those units are sold with the guarantee that they’re going to make a lot of money on the backend from services and games licensing. it may sound unusual, but owning an apple product doesn’t tie you into their ecosystem the same way that gaming does. you could buy an ipod for a collection you already have, and never download another song again. or simply download from amazon or zune. if you have an ps360 there is no alternative place to get cheaper games or a cheaper xbox live subscription
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem is that nobody here knows what subscription services, iTunes interaction, apps or widgets Apple will sell with the TV sets. This might be a brilliant idea from a service selling point of view but the eager naysayers seem to have no imagination to see what services Apple might market with the TVs.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 6:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
do not under estimate the power of sheep consumerism.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re a moron. Your type needs to stay on Engadget where you belong.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
how am I wrong? Are you saying apple doesn’t have a sheep consumerism type of effect? Are you saying all those people in line to buy an apple product are informed, well tech educated people? REALLY?
You need a little dose of reality. I think the kool aid is in full effect.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of course they’re not all well educated tech people. So what? They are normal people who feel a strong connection to a product. Again, so what??? Why does this bother you so much? It doesn’t make them sheep, especially since far more people are buying Android phones, so obviously THEY (you) are the sheep, right?
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:01 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If this are coming they are prolly monitors … may be with appletv inside…buty they sure will be marketed as monitors
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So basically a really big iMac?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ugh, Digitimes. Why even repost anything they say? Their track record is basically on par with BGR at this point.
… That being said, I got an Apple TV yesterday and love it. Most places were actually sold out of it which I thought was surprising. It mustn’t be doing too badly for a ‘hobby’ product.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ben, I bought one early December a year ago. The courier who delivered it asked what was in the box. I asked, “why do you want to know?” His reply: we got a shipment of about 5,000 of those boxes overnight, for local delivery."
I live in a city of < 2 million.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There was some rumor that they shipped 1 million units in a couple of months after release I think? But yeah the AppleTV 2 was a huge improvement over the original. The original was kind of crappy.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know how much truth there is to it and I don’t care to speculate. I’m also not a big fan of Apple due to their draconian practices towards both competitors, their users and their developers. With that being said, they are the ones who pushed change in the music market that was very resistant to the transition to digital. They are also still the only smartphone manufacturer that the carriers can’t bully around into putting their crap apps or skins or widgets on their device. So, as much as I hate to admit, but if anyone can crack the TV market, it’s Apple, and I hope they do, and I hope like the music market, and unlike the situation with carriers, this will open up the doors for others.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:27 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
This, sir, was the first really intelligent comment on this article!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I honestly don’t see why people would choose a smaller screened TV over a bigger one for the center of their home entertainment unless there’s some sort of spatial issue. And don’t say budget cause since its Apple we know it’s going to cost a lot.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 8:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Booo. I’ll buy when it’s 55+.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
when 55+ is 4k.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think this is true, but if it is, Apple is going to be dead on arrival to this market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:12 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This.
If Apple can figure out how to invade the Comcast/TWC/COX branded DVR gardens, then more power to them.
Most people would not have a provider based HD DVR if they had the choice. I think most of us can agree that TiVo is/was pretty much THE way to watch TV before the digital transisiton and now that you have to have cable cards to use it with the encrypted HD services (with some carriers forcing you to use a box even if you don’t have digital cable), I just don’t see how Apple can combine the TV from the pipe AND their iTunes media AND web based content into one device/interface. Even if it is CableCard powered, they will have to sell that to purchasers as well.
I wouldn’t buy any TV less than 40 inches though.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think Digitimes is further off than usual on this one. Consumer preferences in TV screen sizes are all over the place, from huge to kitchen-counter-top small. I think the key os not the screen, but all the things we attach to it: cable boxes, video recorders, gaming devices, DVD players, etc. That is what I would want to disrupt, if I were Apple.
The tiny Apple TV has been described by Apple as “a hobby.” I think it has been a way of testing a few ideas. Enlarge it a bit (Mac Mini size, perhaps), give it WiFi and Ethernet ports, and let it stream on-demand movies and TV shows. Add a cpu and a decent amount of Flash memory, and let it be an IOS extension with App Store games and everything else. In other words, aim to replace all those boxes we pay subscription fees to use with a single box which does everything they do. Let iPods, iPhones, iPads and Siri be the remote controllers.
That, I think, is what Apple’s TV will be … not the screen (we all have those), but a unifying Swiss Army Knife device to feed he screen, disrupting everyone from the cable company pirates onwards.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:16 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I agree…but with a caveat- why not both?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because I think most consumers will resist replacing their existing screens. Most people seem to keep their large screen TVs for years, only changing them when the things start falling apart. New screen features (e.g. 3D) don’t make much difference to the rate of replacement. People do replace/add to the devices they connect, so that is an easier point of entry to the mass market.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:24 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I agree again. To clarify, I was suggesting an Apple TV like device and a actual television being released at the same time, for all of the reasons you mentioned. I don’t think they have to pick one or the other.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Translation:
Useful TV sizes will arrive 2013 and later. But you’re welcome to downgrade to Mickey Mouse TV – fork over the cash!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:38 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Those sizes would maybe make sense in non-US markets. Apple might be breaking their usual approach and launching outside the US first. Really I don’t know what to make of the rumours of a TV – I won’t know what to think until the product actually launches – maybe not even then!
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 9:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This report is BS. HDTV sales in the US are slowing due to market saturation, Apple is not going to try to compete with screen manufacturers in a low margin business when they can make a box that can hook up to millions of existing TVs and charge enough to keep their huge margin. With a 1080p standard they can’t actually add much value or differentiation to the screen itself, just to the services behind the TV, Its interesting to note that Visio, a low cost provider has been the sales leader is LCD TVs.
The only reason I can think is that maybe Apple is guessing the several million strong group of big apple fans will buy one and bring sales up to an acceptable level,
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:09 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I agree: Apple has never tried anything that incompetent in recent history and it sounds unlikely that they are going to start doing something that stupid in the near future.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is bullshit. I was thinking of buying one of these to replace my 6-7 year old 55 in. Plasma. I have a lot of stuff on iTunes, so it would be a good purchase, but no way I’m going to get something as tiny as this. And I highly doubt that this is true. If it is, it will be no more than the iMac.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!!!!!!
itty bitty screen size
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:14 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
wish i could recommend this a million times for the Aladdin referemce
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whether it’s true or not, I can’t see Apple pricing this thing at a point to get the general consumer to pick it up. A good 32’ tv right now probably cost like $400… so with Apple’s , their iTV would probably cost $1200-$1400 which is the same price as a good 50’ – 55’ tv… Nah, I wouldn’t bite.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Like the original iPad started at a grand.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Cripes.
Digitimes is in the business of manufacturing rumors.
They are wrong more than a stopped clock.
This one will clearly be adding to their miss ratio.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:48 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
1. The summer launch is is likely on target, as Apple has move the iPhone launches to September, and merged it with the iPod event, as the iPod is no longer a developing product line.
2. Likely it’ll be a reasonably priced hardware solution, with a subscription element that will compensate for the lack of revenue from the hardware itself. Likely, the hardware will be useless without a subscription.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
what a bunch of snide commenters … not everyone can afford giant flat screen TVs … i only know a few people with bigger TVs than 32" and they are people who slapped it on a credit card so they can “afford” it.
almost everyone i know is rocking a 32" flat screen. my friends and i must be peasants that wallow in the filth at your superior feet.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think you need to read the comments again, it’s not really about what size you have and no one is bashing you for it. It’s more about the price Apple would impose for such as size.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? You know what price Apple is going to charge for this totally fictional product? What an idiot.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
WOW man you are like a raving apple defending lunatic.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I haven’t raved about or defended Apple even one time. What is your problem?? I’m just commenting on how dumb it is for this guy to make an argument based on his imagined price of a product that doesn’t exist! That has nothing to do with Apple, now does it?
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:04 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I do hope Apple is paying you for this type of Honey badger Apple loving, please show a little pride, type of behavior.
PLEASE tell me Apple is paying you.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re dumber than I thought. Go away.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is going to make small TVs hard to afford now if this rumor is true.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 11:46 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
you can get a decent 42" tv for under $600 now. stop wallowing.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ah, you must be one of the 99%. My toy poodle has a 32" television in his room. Now get back to the lower decks, peasant.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I got 42inch 720P LCD Sharp AQUOS in 2009 for $447 out the door brand new: what are you talking about?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Uhm ok, or you could hook up an apple tv for $99 to your current big screen television. Sorry, but 37" ?? That’s stupidly small
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
a super thin “monitor” with the only internal electronics being a receiver for wireless HD signal and then a more powerful apple tv box that everything runs through would be ideal…
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple R&D has shown that 37" is the largest optimal size for a television.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
depends on how big your room is and how far away you sit: if their R&D said something that stupid: that there is a single “optimal” size: then I have no faith in the future of the company.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I guess Alex Albrecht will be getting a free TV.
PS: Commentors are acting like those two sizes are bad choices, but I’ve had a 32" TV for the past two years.I remember only spending around $300 for it at Best Buy, it was the last, cheapest 1080p set there when I bought it
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bigger is not necessarily better. That said, it is small for a “premium” product—however, maybe they will not demand the premium we expect (like when the halved the analysts expectations of the iPad’s price). If this rumor is true, my guess would be that they will be able to sell a 32" iTube for $499 and the 37" for $599. And I really doubt that the rumor from DigiTimes, if true, is comprehensive.
If I were running apple, I’d shoot for four sizes: 32", 42", 50", 60" or 32", 37", 47", 55" with the 47"+ being 4k because 1080p can look grainy from any distance less than ten feet for anything other than pictures and video—that is, the UI and apps. (And since the iPad 3 will be high res…)
32" 1080p at $499
37"-42" 1080p at $599-$749
47"-50" 4k at $1499
55"-60" 4k at $1999
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 12:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they do I hope Samsung sues them at every turn. Especially if Apple makes a TV in the shape of a rectangle,
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Moron.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s about time for me to get a new HDTV. I’ve decided to wait and see if Apple comes out with one before I buy. I have an Apple TV 2 and the only thing it’s missing now is a subscription option for new television content. If they fix this, either through Hulu+ integration (my current solution) or provide an iTunes subscription service (likely with a ton more content than Hulu) you bet your ass I’ll get an “iTV”. Even if I do get a 37", I have a 42" now, I’d be ok with downgrading on size if I was upgrading on quality.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
why not just get a Roku to be a companion to your Apple TV. With prices starting at $50 for the LT and up to $99 it’s basically an impluse purchase. It’s content is superior to Apple TV and would fill your TV subscription void from Hulu +, HBO GO, Amazon Video On Demand etc.
I have a friend who owns both and basically only uses his apple TV now to stream pictures and home videos from his iTunes account. Otherwise he lives on his Roku.
something to think about.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Am I the only one that things that image looks stupid? 4:3 ipad on a 16:9 tv? wtf? Please tell me if they release this it will at LEAST expand to 1 6:9.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that is such a great point that is ALWAYS overlooked when people compare other tablet to the iPad. It’ss 4:3 aspect ratio is plain horrible for watching widescreen tv shows, movies etc.
but that is never mentioned because it is an area the iPad fails against high end Honeycomb tablets
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
False, it is and has been mentioned as one of the things that 16:10/16:9 tablets are better at. The problem with widescreen is that it doesn’t work as well in portrait, even though I don’t have a problem with it. I do think that 4:3 is more amenable to the changing of orientation.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Widescreen in portrait works a lot better for tablets IMO, especially allowing for more room to view content when typing.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s mentioned constantly, moron.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really show me one article.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 9:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you not know how to use Google? Find your own articles, moron.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
oh course you can’t produce one because they don’t exisit. I don’t have to use google search, I know they aren’t out there. You on the other claim “it’s mentioned constantly” So the proof of burden is on you.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t care enough to prove anything to you. LOL. Get over yourself.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seriously? Come on!
The “iPad” wasn’t originally called the “iPad” by the technorati, but in order to get the idea of the product across they referred to it as the iTablet or whatever they did back in the day (has it really been that long?). The reason that The Verge refer to this product as the iTV is so we know what they’re talking about. It could just be an updated Apple TV, but I doubt it. More like a hack and slash to that device (it’s only like a hundred bucks on Apple’s website now… Sad stuff…) and a new product name to suggest all of what it does. Think something to the effect of iMediaHub, but not nearly as much of a mouthful.
To think that Steve called it “cracked” means it will actually deliver, while the Apple TV was “just a hobby” so I think this one will probably be worth a few thousand dollars. That is, if it’s up to par. But Apple has a close relationship with music and “podcasts” (wouldn’t be calling them podcasts, otherwise, would we?) and has to consider this. From the little I’ve played with the Apple TV, it’s just utter crap. It’s nothing like using a Mac, iPod, iPhone, iWhatHaveYou, but then again not as bad as using other media hubs I’ve used.
Just throwing this stuff out there.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 1:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
32 inches? I’ll wait for the iTV Nano, preferably 10 inches…with a full screen aspect ratio.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 2:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sad, 37inch is wack. Any HDTV smaller than 40in is weak. I seriously cant believe that Apple thinks its affluent client base would want to swap their big 40+ inch 1080P 3D widescreens from some meh blah sized screen. Fail
Steve Job’s leaves and they go with this….
They had the Apple TV device right on: its an accessory for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch; what they needed to do was upgrade the Apple TV with 1080P and A6 and more ram.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You do reliaze that jobs worked on the TV long before his death right?
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You realize this is an unsubstantiated rumor, right?
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think that minor detail has registered with most of these commentators.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Knowing Apple, they’ll leave off all ports (HDMI, component, etc) because the included iOS-based AppleTV software SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYBODY.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
yep. If Jobs were alive he would say “PEOPLE DO NOT WANT HDMI. IT IS THAT SIMPLE”/////
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The current Apple TV has HDMI, as does the Mac Mini, moron.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If apple tries to sell an expensive 37" TV it will be an epic fail.
If they can revolutionize EVERYONE’S TV experience with the apple TV box it will be a epic win.
I think that’s sums it up.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
In fact, one thing to watch for is the possibility that Apple could snap up TiVo, Inc. and turn the TiVo DVR—which in the Premiere model already has a lot of streaming video capabilities anyway—into the next-generation Apple TV device, with the iOS-based Apple TV interface replacing the TiVo interface. And it will use an upgraded version of Siri so you could do voice commands to find and record TV shows from cable TV and satellite TV sources.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 10:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It doesn’t have to be successful from the start to be worth it. It is enough to be a hobby like the apple tv and it will be good enough.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple has a track record of releasing products that, at the time of release, don’t hit the market sweet spot. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they are spectacularly successful… I’m no fanboy (in fact I own nothing from Apple because I generally dislike their products), but I think its foolish to think it will fail just because they are releasing a screen size that is slightly smaller than the 42" norm.
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The tV will be in a 4:3 formatt like Apples other displays
Posted on Dec 27, 2011 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What a stupid comment.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It doesn’t seem right to me that Apple would make TV’s that are that small. I mean, they’re only 5-10 inches bigger, which I guess is a lot, but is still small for a TV.
Ahh well, rumours are rumours.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 12:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t care for apple products in general, but I do agree that they can take an existing idea and make it work brilliantly, most of the time.
I suppose they could make iTunes video streaming, airplay and all kinds of other things built into the TV, but they can’t rely on small Screen sizes to win their spot in the market. They need a 46"+ model IMHO, one which doesn’t have an abnormally high price tag.
Well, none of them should have really high price tags. They should be competitive with the rest of the market, because most users won’t even use some of the “smart” features of the TV.
Good viewing angles, contrastand low power consumption would be all that the average Joe would require. DLNA/Airplay and apps would be an added bonus.
3D… Well, if it’s crosstalk free then it’s good. I don’t think Apple would include it if it’s not up to scratch.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 1:14 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe Apple is simply going to begin making really big iMacs? Seems like one of those could function well as a TV if the screen were bigger.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:11 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Hmmm, methinks that they will not be able to use iTV as a brand name…
http://www.itv.com/
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My current TV is a 42" and I’m not too keen on getting something smaller than that, I was already contemplating going bigger. If Apple does a TV, it has impressive technical merits (no doubt it will), and is at least 42" across, I’m a buyer.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not sure why people are going OTT about these rumoured screen sizes. Could be a wild guess, could be OLED-like tech that is only available at such mass qualities at that size, etc. The separate Apple TV box will still be available or the iPad 3 will have ability to act as one for those with giant screens. Not a big deal.
One good guess i’ve seen put forward on another site was the idea of Apple using iCloud to act like a giant DVR. Recording everything on all the signed up networks and offering it all on demand with a revenue split with the network (iAd, subscription fee’s). Sounds like a nightmare for the servers, especially when they’ve have some hit n’ miss launches with iCloud services but it would be one way of keeping the networks and internet providers ‘in the loop’ of this new service.
We know that if they’re not kept in the loop, then no matter how ‘cool’ Siri or any other UI is, ‘iTV’ won’t take off.
Another smaller thing, this guy was hired recently with an unknown role within Apple. Most speculated it was related to improving audio on iPads and iTunes but i bet he’d have some interesting ideas about home theatre audio:
http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-said-to-have-hired-the-audio-genius-behind-thx/
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 10:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple could probably do a lot to make TV sets ‘better’. They have a good track record of caring about details that most manufacturers neglect and TVs are historically full of such issues. Too often, it seems like TVs are sold pretty much on two factors. Price and screen. There seems to be hardly any consideration put into things like how quickly it turns off and on, or switches inputs, or navigates menus, or how well the menus are designed or how the built-in speakers sound or how easy it is to program the remote…etc. These are all details that I think Apple would pay attention to and (hopefully) improve on. (That’s not even to mention the ‘secondary specs’ list of color reproduction and calibration, viewing angle, refresh rate…etc.)
But even if they did, it’s hard to see how they would make the same impact they did with phones or tablets. Because even if they can fix the TV set and make a product that is performant, easy to use, snappy/responsive and affordable(or at least competitively priced) there is still the issue of content delivery and the problems with cable and satellite providers. All of the problems with responsiveness, ease of use, programming that exist with TVs now are stacked when you throw a cable box into the mix.
And now many times have you seen those idiotic home theater installations with 5" touchscreen (resistive) remotes that barely work, break easily and are still responsible for controlling 5 or 6 different devices, all while adding yet another layer of sluggishness to it all.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 2:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope those pics aren’t actual leaks. That set looks like s**t. If I’m spending Apple size money, I don’t want my display being letterboxed.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 4:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
iTV written just like that is shown on stickers in windscreens on cars in Spain to show that the vehicle is roadworthy. In the UK we refer to it as the MOT!
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.