Here you go… in plain English….lots of years of others failing, then apple comes along and does it right

People buy what works, the iPad, and that is because iPad is the paradigm shift mentioned

they will do the same for “smart TV” as they did for “smart phone” and they will sell more smart TV’s than have been produced so far by all smart TV producers so far (are there really any?)

1) Sony already sells “Ultra HD” 3840×2160 resolution (~4k) televisions. you mean you don’t already have one? Please tell us where you purchase your 4k content.

2) physical recorded media is a good thing. the internet infrastructure in most people’s homes & neighborhoods can’t support streaming 4k video to every home. BluRay remains the de facto standard for high definition video and probably will for several more years because its H.264 / MPEG 4 AVC format will support 4k resolution video. No streaming service even comes close.

3) new compression algorithm not needed. but, not likely that 4k resolution could be supported by current infrastructure or, for that matter, by the iTunes store. i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Apple to convince all production studios to distribute their products through the Apple middle-man.

4) no, i’m not.

Philips technologies, like Ambilight, are well ahead the competition and Philips doesn’t sell 399$ TVs… I don’t know, just thinking aloud (and probably wrong).

(Brought to you by White Castle)

1) iTV, which has a built-in (and possibly upgradable) iOS powered media hub, which can deliver content, be controlled by gestures, remote(s) like your iPhone/iPad, maybe Siri (I’m not convinced Siri would work unless it is part of your iPhone/iPad as a remote), and some other revolution which pulls all the various devices, content delivery systems, sound systems, etc. together in one easy interface. This would obviously be a premium TV product.

2) AppleTV continues in an upgraded fashion, able to do much of the iTV but no gesture controls, perhaps a lack of other device control, and other limitations. This would capture the lower market of people who don’t want to upgrade their TV sets to a new iTV yet but still want some of Apple’s TV goodies. This lets Apple get into the door, and create the “want” for an iTV later while pulling more consumers into its ecosystem.

Could the ‘New Apple TV’ proponents specifically tell what they want this “Smart TV” to do that the current Apple TV + your monitor of choice doesn’t already do?

Just a thought…..

Things are changing now as systems become ALL digital and they can drop analog since the FAA now allows that.

You will then be able to use a small cheap converter no larger than a Mac Mini

I think we’ll all be surprised (or not at all surprised) when we see that yet again, Apple has gone into an existing market, even a heavily competitive and quickly evolving one (identical to the mobile handset market at the time) and flip it upside down with a product that will shift the way all competitors manufacture and market their devices to compete with Apple’s game changer.

I think MDN’s point about a paradigm shift is spot on.

Notice anything DIFFERENT?

1. TV is rapidly moving towards the 4k tv (Google it), but with the movie industry already adopting 8k technology and has existing hardware and software, tv will bounce right over 4k and go directly to 8k. The main advantage to such resolutions are the larger and much more immersive experience, better than 3d, and you don’t need any lame glasses. Think IMax.

2. This will require videos to be sold as Flash Drives. An 8k video is 32 (possibly 64) times the size of its HDTV equivalent; 16 times the amount of pixels AND it as up to a 120hz frame rate.

3. Corralling all of the competing tv transmission types (cable, broadcast, DSL, etc.) would be like herding cats, but it could be the miracle that the Apple engineers could produce. Such large video data files would need a new compression algorithm, but then Apple could provide all necessary “channels” directly over the internet.

8k video w/ 2000 streaming broadcasts. Granted it’s a ton of data, but who better to push the world into better technology than Apple? With it all fully duplexed digital, it would be up to the individual broadcasts to provide any “on demand” services. Apple doesn’t need to store anything, just act as the switching center. This would benefit the broadcaster with constant viewer info, and control of individualized advertising.

With such an automated data switch, communications between individuals becomes even easier to set up and use.

What? You hate that idea? Twist.

Sure MS/BG trumpeted tablets since 2001, but come on….. In ten years the entire tablet ‘market’ probably sold fewer in the wild really shipping slates than Apple produced as prototypes for the iPad.

Newton and dynabook? OK, they were there, but the company and product that was the real first mover, making tablets, excuse me, pads, affordable, accessible, and put them into the hands of the general populace of end users was, without a doubt Apple with the iPad, FTW!

apple can’t magically get content on there without negotiating expensive contracts.
there is no point in spending $2000 on a TV just for netflix and itunes integration. netflix even says that the PS3 is their most used device

so far apple TV is like google glass. the fans say how cool it is, but there is no real use for it

McIntyre has no valid point, especially since every one of his examples are not of Apple being “first movers,” but rather of Apple being market disruptors.

It doesn’t matter what the life cycle of the product is in a market that is worth billions and billions of dollars a year – it’s still a viable market to enter.

The Xserve was not a consumer product; it was aimed at small production shops, so it had an *extremely* limited market.

You’ve disproved nothing, except that you’re a genius.

You remind me of somebody:

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” – Palm CEO Ed Colligan, November 20, 2006

Less than two months later, Steve Jobs pulled the first iPhone from his jeans’ pocket and revealed Colligan to be a total fool waiting for his pink slip.

You cannot divine the future while trapped in the current paradigm.

If I told you in 2006 that people would soon buy a $500-$800 smartphone that would revolutionize not only the industry, but the world, you’d have said the same thing you said above and you’d have been just as wrong.

(Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.)

Apple will not, I believe, sell a 50″ Apple TV cheaper than a 27″ Thunderbolt Display which retails for $999. This puts the Apple TV in the $1,500 to $2,000 bracket.

Television sets, in general, last more than 5 years. On average, people replace their TV sets in 7-10 year cycles. There’s no real advancement in TV technology that will necessitate shorter replacement cycles.

Apple TV then will sell in fewer numbers than XServe. And you know what happened to the XServe line after a couple of years of swimming against the tide. Dead as a Dodo.