Apple is working on a television for 2012, say sources

“Apple is almost certainly working on a digital television based on its iOS operating system, according to multiple sources in Silicon Valley,” Dylan Tweney reports for VentureBeat.

“An Apple-based television makes sense in light of Apple’s continued expansion out of the computer industry into the larger consumer electronics market,” Tweney reports. “But is it real?”

Tweney reports, “Apple has been testing the waters with its AppleTV, a set-top box that provides access to movies and TV from iTunes as well as other online video content. The company has a number of partnerships with movie studios and television networks, giving it an impressive content library. And its lightweight iOS operating system seems ideally suited for consumer devices (the OS is already under the hood in AppleTV)… iOS will enable Apple to transform the television into something that doesn’t just show videos, but also plays games, runs apps, lets you check your schedule and tweet about what YouTube movie you happen to watching at that moment.”

Read more in the full article here.
 

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]

43 Comments

  1. I can see Apple playing around with this idea but I find it hard to believe that they will release a TV unless the also completely change the delivery of content.

    That’s what worked with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. You have to build an ecosystem that favors the consumer. The entire TV ecosystem is currently tilted in the favor of the content providers rather than the consumer.

    Who else can explain consumer reasoning for spending $100 a month for a couple of hundred channels that you will never watch?

    Any Apple made TV, if that is the case, will have to provide something unique and exclusive to this new content model. I bet the iCloud will have something to do with this model too.

  2. I can’t see Apple selling actual TVs. What I do see is them licensing the use of the current Apple Tv puck as an insertable device into a third-party TV monitor. Apple would have to impose a minimum hardware requirement on third party vendors (Samsung, Sony, etc…) in order for their TV to get the official Apple TV-ready certification and be advertised as such. The puck could then be upgraded annually with the Apple TV refresh cycle, without having to replace the entire TV. You’re just replacing the brains, in essence, which is much cheaper.

  3. “and tweet about what YouTube movie you happen to watching at that moment”

    Finally life will be worth living. Until that incredible moment, I can only wait in limbo.

    1. Agreed, a life worth living. I’m always saying “I wonder what YouTube clip Seamus is watching right now … I wish he’d tweet! “. I’m sure you wonder the same about me.

  4. I don’t understand what Apple gains by making television sets as opposed to something that plugs into a television set (you know, like Apple TV).

    I mean a TV is just a display. It’s meant to display content, not deliver it. Oh sure, there are a few “active” TVs from Sony and Panasonic, but it’s my understanding these aren’t selling very well.

    Mind you, there are lots of things that didn’t sell well until Apple released its take on the idea, but here I just think the idea is inherently stupid. I don’t want the delivery system to be built in to my TV.

    ——RM

    1. Why? For the same reason Apple makes both an iMac (computer with built in display) and a Mac mini (just the computer to be used with a third-party display). But Apple would rather sell you an iMac, because Apple makes more profit per unit with an iMac. That’s why there is no “headless” Mac model in between a Mac mini and Mac Pro (although such a model would be quite popular), because Apple wants to sell the all-in-one solution instead.

      The current Apple TV is equivalent to Mac mini. It sells for $99. The profit per unit is $30, at most, which is why Steve Jobs kept calling it a “hobby,” even in its latest release. If Apple sold a high-quality HDTV for $999, the profit per unit could be 10x. An HDTV is something that is “shown off” in the living room. Of course enough customers would pay $999 for it to make a successful product, instead of a plastic-y equivalent size/resolution TV for $699 (plus $99 for an Apple TV add-on). In terms of profit, selling just one Apple HDTV would be worth selling TEN little Apple TVs.

      1. Dammit. I just knew that someone would make that ridiculous comparison to the iMac when I wrote that comment. I thought about preemptively addressing it, but I figured my comment was long enough as it is.

        Look: Computers, TVs — two different things. Nearly everyone in Apple’s market owns a good or at least decent TV. Not everyone owns a decent computer monitor. It makes sense to buy an all-in-one computer for simplicity’s sake. Buying an all-in-one TV is the exact opposite of simplicity. You already have an investment in your current TV setup. Plus, if the all-in-one device has a problem, well there goes television in that room. If your iMac has a problem, worst case scenario is you lose internet and email for awhile (assuming you can’t take care of those on your phone).

        Bottom line: all-in-one computers and all-in-one TVs are two completely different ideas and cannot be compared to each other. A computer is a device. A TV is a component.

        But then again, I’m on record on this very site as saying a touch-screen iPod was an idiotic idea, and now I own one. Apple has a way of making that happen.

        ——RM

  5. Why doesn’t Apple just use a box to do all those things instead of embedding it into an entire TV? I can understand if it’s some sort of removable module, but other than than it makes little sense to me since the cable box industry changes rather quickly. I’d only buy it if it had storage capabilities because that’s the feature I use the most on a cable box. Time shifting shows is such a great convenience and I’m almost certain that Apple can’t stand anyone recording programs.

    I’ll bet Apple’s device won’t have dual-tuners either. I’ll likely still have to hook up a Mac Mini to take care of everything I need. Too bad. Apple’s idea might be terrific for most consumers, but it won’t be suitable for my needs.

    1. But why would YOU need to do the time-shifting if Apple did it for you? Wouldn’t you rather watch whatever you want, whenever you want without doing anything other than accessing it?

      If Apple provides a wealth of content on your schedule for a reasonable fee, they remove any reason for local storage on your part at all.

      Multiple tuners? You would need NO tuners at all with this system, just a menu to select your favorites when you want them.

      Think different.

Leave a Reply to iRobot Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.