Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Start Making TVs?
timothy writes "Apple might want to sell you your next TV,' says this CNN report. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that Apple's razors-and-blades, vertical-marketplace model for iTunes (and the various iDevices) doesn't make as much sense with the world of TV, where your Sony, Samsung, or (egads!) Westinghouse set is just as happy with a Google TV box, or a Roku, or one of many other media devices, as it is with an Apple TV attached."
How would bundling a TV with AppleTV and iTunes NOT be anti-competitive?
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
"This show has been removed from your TV because its plot is similar to a Simpsons Episode" - S.Jobs
It is DOOMED to fail!
Mac Tax on that next 3D TV.
Will it come in white?
It's Steven's world . . . AGAIN !!
Hurry up and die, Die, DIE !! We want to go back to the way things were . . . NORMNAL !!
I dont want a tv that would go the length of telling ME what to do, instead of me telling it what to do through the tv remote.
so, no thanks.
Read radical news here
Because of "consumer demand" it:
1) won't support HDCP sources
2) won't have a VGA input, because, hey, it's a TV
3) would be a CRT
4) would be only an HD Ready tv (720p), with 1080i scheduled for next year, and 1080p for the year later (only in the 60hz frequency, and not the 24hz one).
5) would only work with airport-enabled stereo systems for audio output
6) would only play back video from thunderbolt-enabled cameras
7) would refuse to play porn movies even if legitimately bought by the users, because appletvs are for all the family
8) there would be no remote, it's a free app on itunes for iphone 5
9) would only have a single button: the "on" switch (mind you, it turns only on the tv)
10) would only give you fox news, and would refuse to show MSNBC
11) would refuse to work with usb pendrives because it's everything on the cloud
12) would require the user to use a set of apple-branded eyeballs
Some problems though:
1. Internet service providers. Many of them are cable companies, and can make agreements with other service providers who don't like this idea, or Netflix, to keep their business model afloat.
2. Congress might see that once Apple wins, they'll get fewer bribes compared to keeping Cable alive.
3. Competition - once the idea of a threat to cable becomes a realistic idea, content producers might want to sign on with more than just Apple, meaning that they have to compete on just about every metric. Apple might be able to promise higher prices for their shows though, and thus get more exclusives...
4. Which would mean that more people turn to tools that grab unlicensed content, as more hardware and algorithms appear to make this easy and arguably undetectable.
But yeah - $100+ a month for combined cable services is somewhat insane relative to the actual service costs involved, so it's all a game of who can capture the best captive audience both for money extraction and to sell them to advertisers.
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Ryan Fenton
I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for them, considering how their Cinema Displays are one of the best out there and they have enough clout in the marketplace to secure bigger, but similarly amazing, LCD displays for this. Plus, even though their Apple TVs haven't really sold much, I'm sure they could push tons of them if they up their marketing.
But if they price them the same way they price their monitors, I'll stick to underpriced Sony kit and the like.
I understand better specs and all that, but at $900+ bucks for a 27" monitor, Apple screens are almost four times as much as perfectly suitable (for my purposes) alternatives with the same screen size.
That said, there is almost certainly a market for top of the line, high quality smart HDTVs. Despite cheapskates like me, Apple might very well make a killing.
Apple are more interested in selling products with a short (2-3 year) upgrade cycle, and televisions certainly don't fall into that category. Where is the profit coming from? iTunes? Would it be worth it for iTunes alone?
What is wrong with Westinghouse T.V.s? I got a really good deal on mine from Costco and am quite happy with it.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Or course, this means that you will only be able to watch TV shows approved by Steve Jobs. And then only if you pay him a 30% cut.
How does this even remotely "make sense" for Apple? By bundling Apple TV with a TV you are essentially targeting the market who wants, but doesn't currently have an Apple TV and is in the market for a new television.....thats what, maybe hundreds of people tops? The TV market is a commodity market where the interface is usually last on people's list of priorities. Unlike a PC, cell phone, or music player, you almost never interact with the TVs interface, consumers buy based on size, price, connectivity and picture quality. A TV really only needs to be able to turn on and off, switch channels and video inputs.
This ranks up there with some of the stupidest Apple articles I have seen.
Monstar L
For those of you who are not familiar with Apple history, they already did this. I think it was 1993. They created an all-in-one model that included a TV tuner. 32MHz cpu and 8MB of RAM, IIRC. 14" monitor and all-black case.
They did not sell well.
Consumers aren't going to want to pay a premium for a TV that has the Apple Logo on it.
A television with a decent user interface! Thats a novel idea.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
While my experience with non-technical people has given me the impression that their fear of cables, even relatively simple ones, should not be underestimated, I still find it hard to imagine that the TV market could possibly be in Apple's interest.
Apple's work in hardware has, for quite some time now, observed a number of basic characteristics, all unhelpful to the TV market:
Cost/time structure: Upon first release, a new Apple device is(strictly compared to equivalents) often reasonably aggressively priced. However, each of their product lines doesn't see a new release all that often and their prices are pretty sticky between release events(when a new Mac Pro model comes out, for instance, you'd be hard pressed to configure an equivalent Precision workstation for the same money. 6 months later, the Precision's price has been inching down, and the Mac Pro is still identically priced until a refresh happens.) The TV market, however, is a constant deluge of cheaper and/or improved and/or now-with-50%-more-lies models. Even if they used their volume buying power to make a big splash on introduction, in 6 months they'd be priced above everything but the high end of Sony's lineup.
Industrial design/component selection: Apple has a very clear vision of what "good" is, and is largely unwilling to sell you anything else. On the plus side, this saves many non-spec-savvy users from buying something they'll be unhappy with 6 months from now. On the minus side, this means that the entry-level price is quite high. With TVs, it is empirically demonstrable that a fair proportion of buyers absolutely don't give a fuck about the finer nuances of picture quality and color accuracy and whatnot, they just want big and cheap(and, since "industrial design" in TVs largely boils down to "what bezel color would you like?" it'll be hard to justify a major premium). Because of Apple's hatred of model-proliferation, they'd be squeezed between the Big-Bright-'n-Cheap! house brands of the world, who would be eternally offering screens a size or two larger for less money, and the elitist videophile models, who would be offering markedly superior performance at a price that anyone with relatively mass-market aspirations could never hope to carry off.
Interconnect: Apple is... Spartan... in this regard. They do often aggressively adopt new and shiny ones; but they kill of the legacy ones at least as fast. With TVs, this is something of an issue because the central family TV frequently finds itself playing host to a (not always predictable ahead of time) swarm of boxes, each of which demands an A/V connection from some different era of history.
On strength of brand alone, Apple could easily shift some TVs: just select an OEM, remove one external HDMI connection and hardwire an apple-TV to it inside, and slap a nicer case on the result. This would run against the grain culturally, though.
Anti-Competitive needn't be limited to sleazy back room dealings to prevent competitors access to the market.
Apple's devices, in particular, have been unassailable; which puts other CE manufacturers in an awkward position. If Apple could be counted on to add a little "Redmond design" to each product, there would be a more competitive landscape.
That said, I wouldn't want a TV with a slick user interface or less than 40 buttons on the remote control. I'd spend too much time watching it. Go Sony!
Why would anyone buy this? Seriously, I'm typing this from my iMac, I have several iPod's and iPhones, I watch the keynotes. Lets just say I like Apple products. This sounds stupid. A TV is a medium to long term technology investment I want to get at least 10 years out of it before replacing it. Bundling in a set-top box to the TV seems like a terrible idea. In 4-5 years my TV will be behind the times and in need of an upgrade. Or I could buy an Apple set-top box right now for $100 and in a few years upgrade it for probably around the same price. No buying a huge expensive TV every couple years to keep it compatible. It seems dumb.
Most people rarely "interact" with their TV the same way that they rarely interact with their cell phones and mustic players. Note the shift from the prevailing view not all that long ago of "I don't want all these features, I just want to make a damned phone call" to wanting the latest iPhone or Android. Ditto with music players.
These days, when people watch TV, they want to schedule recordings, pause, play, rewind, watch two shows at once with picture in a picture, have a stock ticker running while they watch a comedy, stream video sources, stream audio over the internet while they play a video game, make phone calls, etc. Turning what essentially a dumb disply into a smart device capable of doing that is the next logical step.
So the market that would be targetted is not the existing market of people buying an Apple set top box. Rather, it's people looking for new TVs and, if the rumors are true, the strategy is to get a sizeable portion of that market to buy one that has Apple's iOS built into it. I think that's a reasonable strategy. The biggest obstacle seems to me to not be the market itself but barriers to entry for varioius services. Cable companies hate cable-ready TVs. They absolutely loved the advent of digital TV where they could start encrypting the signal and requiring a set top box in every room. Apple is going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to convince cable companies to allow Apple branded TVs to use the Apple interface rather than the set top box of the cable company. As long as consumers pretty much have to use the cable company interface, or as long as cable card is inconvenient to install, it's going to be difficult to break into the market.
That is, until such time as streaming over the Internet is capable of replacing cable service.
No installable porn apps for the iOS running on the TV.
But porn channels from the cable company and subscriptions to streatming porn from web sites would work just fine.
...welcome a Jobsian stab at remaking the television. Right now, what good is a sleek flat panel set if you need all those wires to connect it for power, Bluray player, amp...? Perhaps a two-element design (like the last Pioneer Kuro) with a single cord connecting the panel to a separate box?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If I hear Jobs making one more speech about simplifying things and putting a dent in the universe I swear I'll hop on the next plane to Cupertino and brain the elitist gouging fuck with a piece of scaffolding pipe.
Apple already has a device that handles everything the TV needs without having to deal with the TV's problems (backlight, dead pixels, manufacturing problems/"green-ness", etc). My guess is if Apple is looking in this direction, they're going to sell AppleTV equipment to TV manufacturers for integration into their TVs, not their own Apple-branded flat panels. I seriously doubt Apple will release an Apple TV to compete with the Sonys and Philips And Samsungs out there, but Apple will happily sell those companies a plug-in module that'll increase the value of their TVs and increase the userbase of the iTunes store. Maybe Sony won't bite, but the smaller manufacturers might.
bah.
First, Apple would have to start "making" Iphones, Ipads, and Macs. All of Apple's units are produced by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., aka "Foxconn", which also manufactures TVs for Sony. Best Buy is now a "manufacturer". "Polaroid" is a TV manufacturer. Heck, I could start "Manufacturing" TVs. The western press appears to be utterly oblivious to what "manufacturers" are. We have a Tin-Tin image of China (see 60 Minutes coverage of e-waste - the product they filmed was actually delivered to a factory refurbishing program). http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2010/07/60-minutes-wastelands-missing-minutes_17.html Lenovo bought out IBM almost a decade ago, the "logo" on our devices is going to seem quaint in its importance a decade from now.
Gently reply
I'm guessing that, a big "if true", then they have more networks in their good graces than GoogleTV does which seems to have angered almost all of them and reduced its functionality and market demand.
Wouldn't it be better to get an app for smart TV's like Netflix, Pandora, and the other big streaming companies have and stay out of the crowded hardware market (unless blocked)? Unless they can do something truly innovative that is also beyond what a small add-on box can do, with none of the headaches involved in rolling such an effort out, then they should stick to stand alone devices. TV prices are already pretty competitive. I would not want to pay an extra grand for a TV just b/c it had an apple logo on it and had AppleTV built in.
dur.
Like their existing Apple TV product, this is going to be a tough sell.
Seriously... Why would I want to pay $4 to rent a single HD movie or TV show from iTunes, when I can watch as many as I want from Netflix for $9 a month?
Sorry, but there are already enough designs out there that other than slapping an Apple logo on it what can they do in TVs that has not been done? Aluminum - already done, all black, well that is everywhere, white? ewww?
Throw in the low margins and just how much of an idiot fanboi market do they think they can exploit? I cannot imagine anything less than 40+ would have a margin sufficient to matter. Do they really think GoogleTV/etc is such a threat? After seeing their lock in/lock down attempts with the iOs market the last thing I want to do be stuck with one provider for entertainment. Sorry, but my blu-ray player can already connect to the net and has selections for HULU and NetFlix and it does all of this up to 1080p when playing discs locally - something Apple TV cannot do.
Give me an Apple Tv device that has Blu-Ray, can be a DVR, and plays movies from anyone easily, then I might have a place for them in my living room. As a TV? Really, what can they offer other than a new remote control that still doesn't control my receiver, dvr, etc? I suppose they could make a real universal remote that actually works and doesn't scream dork.
Re-brand a TV someone else makes. I just don't see it. Maybe they will, I know people who buy anything with the logo on it. Just like I know Sony only people. Never understood blind brand faith but I see it. Count me out, I don't need a TV that will carry a premium cost for no reason other than a logo.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
... that thinks this summary is written so poorly that it might well set a new low for Slashdot summaries?
I understand better specs and all that, but at $900+ bucks for a 27" monitor, Apple screens are almost four times as much as perfectly suitable (for my purposes) alternatives with the same screen size.
Go do a search for a 27" IPS-panel LED-backlit monitor from another vendor. Dell has one, for example (the U2711) and they charge...$999 for it.
Big-ass IPS panel monitors are expensive, and you either need one or you don't. I don't. I didn't buy from Apple, but if I did (and I wanted a glossy finish) I would.
Just what everyone wants -- a TV that only shows information in a proprietary format and the content is only what Steve Jobs thinks should be seen.
Apple could license the AppleTV interface and hardware to manufacturers to build in AppleTV functionality; and then sell content off of iTunes. This lets the TV manufacturers fight it out in the marketplace and no matter who wins, Apple wins. Once enough AppleTV capable sets are out there, Apple would be in a great position to get more content providers to move to iTunes. Ultimately, they could move users from cable TV to an a la cart and / or subscription model from iTunes. It would also make as sea change in how advertising is sold on TV.; and give Apple, with it's in depth knowledge of each iTunes customer, the ability to create a very lucrative ad revenue stream as well.
TV viewing habits have changed a lot over the last 20 years - from watching it "live" to time shifting via DVR and TiVO to on-demand via cable or internet. People are conditioned to watch what they want when they want it, and AppleTV / iTunes is a very good model to deliver that to them even more conveniently and cheaply. The money that now goes to TiVO and cable companies can start flowing to Apple instead.
Which is why I think cable companies are starting to introduced tiered pricing via speed and bandwidth caps - they realize they could just become a pipe and see their cable revenue dry up while they provide their competitors with the entry point to their customers.
To me, the real razor and blade model is Apple buying a wireless internet service provider with large coverage across the US (or simply buying a bucket load of bandwidth to resell) and bringing a relatively cheap pipe to AppleTV users to give people a chance to spend more on iTunes.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Hopefully the Apple television won't come with an underpowered CPU like the AppleTV does.
Didn't they smash a TV for the 1984 commercial????!?!??!??!!?!
Seriously - we spend so much time in our cars, why not a head unit from apple? For the kind of coin they ask, they could probably get a HD big enough to sync at least 2-3 iDevices to the unit (one way) so that your phone/pod/touch could be the link between your home system and the unit, though a video/interface pass-through via the super-secret connector handshake would probably be enough.
Since wifi sync is on the way, let your car sync to your home pc wirelessly. Add a sim slot, and now your head unit is an iPad-like device with it's own connection. Last.FM or Pandora or (yeah, you guessed it) iCloud natively on a head unit. Mapping apps are already made for iOS. You could probably get away without a physical media drive (aka CD/DVD), but they're not hard to incorporate. They'll ignore optional external memory, of course, but a generic a or a/v in would be a nice bone to throw to those not fully Steveified yet.
I would expect that their UI would be a shitload better than the $2000 Kenwood/Eclipse/Panny crap that's on the market.
Really - I want a damned Apple head unit. Now.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Do you have an axe to grind with Westinghouse or is this supposed to be funny. Perhaps you just don't like American assembly line workers. I find it offensive john
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&pq=cisco+tv&xhr=t&q=Cisco+LCD+TV&cp=11&qe=Q2lzY28gTENEIFQ&qesig=xNmAvOFB-hKDH25EyUayhA&pkc=AFgZ2tn8Ej-wspumcF8i-LLhC7kg8TY5I8JtxtxWu5zE57q9rIfUpTU9NhbtwJvEFay3myzeOQekH7_1ylI9Ur0i968prtPoIQ&client=firefox-a&hs=hNQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1680&bih=793&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=3778220348194346124&sa=X&ei=AUIDTrGpJaHi0QH789CjDg&sqi=2&ved=0CE8Q8wIwAw
I laughed my butt off when I saw a client buy all Cisco displays for their office.. paid 5X the price for rebranded LG displays....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Evolution
If Apple puts a Mac Mini inside the TV set so that third parties can add apps (or use open source software, or bootcamp to dual boot with Linux/windows to run ANY PC application to surf the web for content). Actually just add a TV tuner to large screen iMac and you have a TV.
I bought a top-of-the-line 52" TV last year. If it lasts even half as long as the same brand TV it replaced (I waited and waited for it to die, but it never did), it'll be ten years before I'll be ready to buy another TV.
Price doesn't matter. iTards will buy anything if it's shiny and white.
Wait a second, stop right there.
The Apple TV is shiny and black .
On top of that, it's $99. I don't think you can buy any other similar device for $33 to $66, and there isn't a "I want to pay even more money" button on the Apple Store website, or do you expect us to believe that people wander into Apple's retail stores and try to haggle the price up?
If you're going to troll, at least try and be informed about the subject.
Putting moderation advice in your
Will they come with a one button remote?
Only when I can rockbox it.
iPod, iPhone, iPad..these are all TVs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't really care who makes my TV. I am a big fan of the Apple TV but I've also got an Xbox and a box for my incoming HD signal. The only thing I want for my TV I really care about (and unfortunately I was not able to find in any TV) is easy switching between my attached devices. I don't want to reach for my TV remote to switch HDMI inputs using a horrible menu. I just want to use my iPhone to start playing a movie over AirPlay and not care about what input my TV is set to. I just want to reach for my Xbox and start playing again without switching inputs, etc. The only reason I still have my TV remote is to switch inputs, every other device has it's own ways of control.
So if only Apple knows how to fix the HDMI switching problem (as the first in the world by my knowledge) I will buy their TV, for that reason alone.
Blow Netflix and the other guys away by building in Apple TV? But a big part of the appeal of Apple TV is that it is an excellent Netflix client. These days, lots of TVs come with online capability and the ability to access services like Netflix and Amazon TV. At this point, Apple brings two things to the table with Apple TV: iTunes, and the ability to send video and music to your TV. Neither is compelling enough to sell me an Apple-branded TV set.
What would make such a set appealing? First off, it would need to be a fully fledged iOS device. That's not currently true of the Apple TV set-top box, because it can't (yet?) access the AppStore. It would need to run most existing iPhone/iPad apps with at most minor updates. That implies touch input. So the Apple iTV would come with some kind of touch pad remote, and should be able to use an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch as a touch pad remote. Apple should provide developer support for iApps that use the iTV and other iDevices simultaneously (e.g. for games).
And of course, it would still need to be a good TV.
I dont want a tv that would go the length of telling ME what to do
And there are millions of apathetic voters disagree with you. TV tells people what music to like, what beverage to drink, and even whom to vote for. Viewers are not the customers; they are a product to be bought and sold.
Of all the bits apple includes in their computers - displays seem to be the most expensive cost factor for them.
No thanks, I got a Mini and I can afford my monitor.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Tell me why Apple would want to go head to head with global industrial giants like Mitsubishi and Samsung. These are companies with huge strengths in their home markets and brand name recognition in the West. Companies quite capable of building sophisticated Internet enabled HDTVs without any help from Apple.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452
How stupid do you feel erroneus? Every "so called libelous point" you made there was blown away with valid, concrete, verifiable evidences vs. your trolling "ne'er-do-well" statements there - ROTFLMAO!
(Funny how you ran from each reply too, lol, as their documented evidences shut your mouth, eh?)
Then they put a camera on the front and we are one step closer to 1984.
Macs since 2005 and iOS devices since late 2010 have included the FaceTime camera (formerly iSight).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452
How stupid do you feel erroneus? Every "so called libelous point" you made there was blown away with valid, concrete, verifiable evidences vs. your trolling "ne'er-do-well" statements there - ROTFLMAO!
(Funny how you ran from each reply too, lol, as their documented evidences shut your mouth, eh?)
When I buy a computer, I don't want an all-in-one model. I want my monitor separate in the event that it breaks or I want to upgrade.
I bought a computer with a built-in monitor because it was a laptop. I thought desktop PCs were for people who build, not people who buy.
This is from four years ago! Apple releases iTV, a bunch of flat-panel MacTV's that contain Mac Minis, etc. Cringely has since, several times, insisted he means a real actual television, and not Apple TV (which he admits he did not predict).
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
What do you base yor assumption that 100 dollars is an insane price compared to the costs? do you know the costs? do you know the contractual obligation for the TV distribution? Or do you just assume 100 dollar is a lot without any comparison?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Laptops, unlike TVs, are meant to be portable.
There used to be portable TVs until the United States' 2009 switch to ATSC made it next to impossible to receive OTA signals while moving.
Seriously... Why would I want to pay $4 to rent a single HD movie or TV show from iTunes, when I can watch as many as I want from Netflix for $9 a month?
I can't imagine why. You'd be better off getting a Netflix streaming device like this one instead.
All music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for years, and was made DRM-free at Apple's insistence over years of objections from the music industry.
Apple truly makes everything simple, and its simplicity is what is going to throw it on top of Netflix and most video streaming companies.
I get to keep all my apps? really? How about moving from Windows or Android to iPhone, do I get to keep my Apps?
What about movies. You are saying I can buy movies on an Android phone and then move to a Windows phone and keep my movies? Maybe you can, but how?
It seems like you are talking about 3 different competing ecosystems all with similar levels of lockin. The difference is that one of the ecosystems only works on hardware made by one vendor and the other two kinda suck.
Do you think maybe it is possible that you are completely full of shit?
Because of "consumer demand" it:
Apple never cares about "consumer demand."
1) won't support HDCP sources
Apple's monitors already do; FAIL.
2) won't have a VGA input, because, hey, it's a TV
Probably, and can't say I blame them.
3) would be a CRT
Apple hasn't made a CRT monitor in years, FAIL.
4) would be only an HD Ready tv (720p), with 1080i scheduled for next year, and 1080p for the year later (only in the 60hz frequency, and not the 24hz one).
Ha, actually this wouldn't surprise me
5) would only work with airport-enabled stereo systems for audio output
Apple typically includes optical out, so FAIL.
6) would only play back video from thunderbolt-enabled cameras
Yeah, and cut off iTunes video, iSight video, iMovie exports...FAIL
7) would refuse to play porn movies even if legitimately bought by the users, because appletvs are for all the family
Well, they don't sell pornos, so I guess you'd have to define "legitimately bought".
8) there would be no remote, it's a free app on itunes for iphone 5
Yeah, I could see them doing this, actually.
9) would only have a single button: the "on" switch (mind you, it turns only on the tv)
This, too.
10) would only give you fox news, and would refuse to show MSNBC
Yeah, Apple has Al Gore on its board of directors, Steve Jobs is a huge liberal, and many of its customers are liberal urban hipsters and/or gay. What are you smoking?
11) would refuse to work with usb pendrives because it's everything on the cloud
Pretty sure it won't have any USB ports or other physical media slots at all, so, yeah
12) would require the user to use a set of apple-branded eyeballs
Lame.
Just let me use my iPhone/iPad as a TV remote with full software integration and I'll be very happy.
In response to the report MG Siegler from Tech Crunch says that Apple TV is simply "not happening". See: http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/21/the-apple-branded-cake-is-a-lie/
All my TV really does is accept inputs from other devices (rapidly converging on HDMI)
They're not so rapidly converging for me. A lot of the devices that I use (e.g. classic video game consoles) still output composite video.
But seriously, it appears you want what amounts to a computer monitor with an audio output and an HDMI switchbox.
Pretty much everyone else is making Linux TVs. People who don't bother to think about the details of what they want/need ("I'm just buying a TV"), are ending up with computers-disguised-as-TVs, running ffmpeg, dlna/upnp clients, etc. "Worst" of all, this stuff is extremely interoperative and allows users to play whatever the hell they feel like playing, without forcing them into using anyone's particular services.
This stuff is quietly creeping into millions of homes, and is rapidly making those little low-power add-on media-player computer systems semi-obsolete. (I wouldn't say completely obsolete, because from what I've seen the TV's software still needs lot of improvement, and playing media is really the only application they run .. for right now. No reason it should be that limited.)
Anyone with an OS agenda to push and who wants to lock users into certain services (e.g. the iTunes store) really ought to be trying to get a piece of that action.
Depending on how you look at it, Apple arguably made these same products several years ago, with some of their iMac models where everything is built into the monitor. They just lacked tuners and HDMI input connectors. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Maybe 99.99% of people over the age of 60.
The rest of us hate having a dozen different remote controls on the coffee table and would prefer that the DVD Player/Blue Ray Player/Cable Box/etc. all fit into one neat package instead of having a nightmare of cables, boxes, wall warts and remote controls.
No. It's not. It's vendor proficiency. Just like it was with Microsoft. You can't fault a company for building something that a lot of poeple want (although you'd think so by reading most of the above). Where Microsoft went wrong (in the opinion of the Justice Dept,) is the coercion of OEMs to do as it said or pay the penalty of grossly increased prices. Understanding that, I honestly ask, WTF?
Within a couple of years, I expect that VGA inputs will have vanished on almost all TVs. My new Panasonic plasma doesn't have one. It also lacks s-video, and has only a single component input. I expect that it won't be very long before most TVs have only HDMI, composite, and RF.
John D Rockefeller was a swell guy too!
Water-carrying apologist.
Is apple going to force vendors to sell their product(such as pay-per-view) through itunes and require a 30% cut?
I took apart a 5yr old imac to replace a dead hard drive; it was far from a simple task to dis and re assemble without breaking bits, etc... Kinda easy to see why the drive isn't more accessible....
I'd sworn off Apple products after dramas with iTunes, no linux support, and other problems (like Android being better these days).
But I'd consider buying an Apple TV because it would be a very good TV. Personally I consider iOS devices to be multimedia appliances anyway, as they are crippled as general purpose computers.
Reconfigurability is something fundamental to definition of a computer, which is after all a tool. "No user serviceable parts inside" is something fundamental to a non-repairable consumer appliance focused for a particular task and eventual obsolesence. That's just fine for a TV.
But with one requirement - it must not be white and it must not be overly glossy 99% of flatscreen TVs are black - at least the bezel, and it's for a reason. It also must not cost 50% more than an equivelent spec'd product for no apparent reason other than brand name, a bit of polished metal and window dressing.
So despite everything I probably won't end up buying one.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I thought it was funny how you ran away after every "so-called point" you made was blown away by apk and actual documentation of facts he used, that's all. It was very funny how you ran like a whipped dog with his tail between his legs too.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 Is it because you trolled someone and they shot you down on every so called point you tried to make and they did it with documented facts anyone could see? I saw you run like a whipped dog 10 times there in fact, and for starting trouble with others you threaten to blackmail them? Very intelligent (not).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 Is it because you trolled someone http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452 and they shot you down on every so called point you tried to make and they did it with documented facts anyone could see? I saw you run like a whipped dog 10 times there in fact, and for starting trouble with others you threaten to blackmail? Very intelligent (not)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 Is it because you trolled someone http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452 and they shot you down on every so called point you tried to make and they did it with documented facts anyone could see? I saw you run like a whipped dog 10 times there in fact, and for starting trouble with others you threaten to blackmail? Very intelligent (not)
Cause, let me tell you, AppleTV sucks. It's pretty nift in the sense that it's in a 4"x4"x1" form factor, but other than Airplay (which is buggy enough currently), I can't think of any reason to want one. I can get a lot more for a lot less in terms of a Roku or other device. And Apple - that little microscopic remote control sure looks cool sitting on the coffee table, but did anyone at Apple actually functionally test that thing? Geez, my hand cramps up just thinking about having to use it.
Pretty soon, we'll see news that Apple will try and sue other manufacturers for making TV's with beveled black borders and icons arranged in a grid like pattern to view shows...nice!