Analyst: Apple preparing 65-inch Ultra 4K HDTV for release in 2014

“Apple Inc. will probably start selling ultra-high definition televisions with 65- and 55-inch screens during the fourth quarter of next year, according to a Tokyo-based analyst at Advanced Research Japan Co.,” Mariko Yasu reports for Bloomberg.

“The Cupertino, California-based company is deciding on specifications, and the models likely will have a frameless design, Masahiko Ishino, an analyst at Advanced Research who tracks developments in the consumer-electronics industry, said in an interview Oct. 18,” Yasu reports. “Ishino declined to identify the people who gave him the information.”

“LG Display Co, Samsung Electronics Co. and Corning Inc. may be among the suppliers for Apple’s TVs, which may be priced at about $1,500 to $2,500, Ishino said. LG Display may supply more than 70 percent of the liquid-crystal displays, Samsung may make graphic processing units and Corning’s Gorilla Glass 3 may be used as the cover, he said,” Yasu reports.

Read more in the full article here.

41 Comments

  1. Ahhhh, that analyst just got his FUD posted in time, so when Apple does not announce an Ultra 4K HDTV, they will scream that Apple is doomed and hammer the stock price.

    Sigh

          1. In any case, a year from now no one is going to remember or care about Yasu’s vague prediction. My guess is that he’s trying to impress someone for the day with a nice time buffer in case he’s dead wrong.
            OR
            He’s picking up on the usual Apple inquiries about hardware possibilities for the future. Apple researches A LOT of scattered options that they later abandon as they focus, simplify, optimize.

  2. A 65″ 4k TV for $2,500! Very unlikely from anyone not to mention Apple. (Unless the article is referring to component cost.) A TV does not need the scratch resistance of Gorilla glass. What TV’s need is anti-glare glass. If that happens to be manufactured by Corning great for them.

    1. I also found the prices he wrote to be unrealistic. I know prices will fall fast when manufacturing these cranks up, but these are less than half of current Sony offerings at those screen sizes.

  3. The margins in commodity consumer electronics are too thin to be of interest to Apple. Not going to happen unless Apple has some brand new twist on the TV that allows a much higher than outwardly similar devices. No 4K content pool, no technical need, no bonds to break. Don’t see it.

    1. Agreed. There is nothing Apple can add to a TV that provides value above the rest of the market that would make me want to buy it (since it will cost more than non-Apple products made the same way by the same manufacturer – LG, according to this article).

      It’s a long-lasting product that you won’t want to have to upgrade every 2-4 years as technology changes. And all of the ‘specialness’ that might be provided by Apple will be software-based, which can (and SHOULD) be provided by a set-top box of some sort that will work with any OTHER TV of similar tech (because Apple’s smart enough to not be proprietary in the hardware space).

      And if Apple would stoop to making a TV, why wouldn’t they also make receivers, amplifiers, etc. – no wait, that’s Sony, Panasonic, Sharp, and every other company struggling to make a marginal buck.

    2. Not only that, this supposed TV is out of the question for a lot of potential customers: those who live in smaller apartments and condos where even 55″ is too big, let alone 65″.

      1. Yeah, I’m one of them. While I *could* put a larger screen in some locations, they’re on side or back walls. For my prime location the highest I can go is … 42″! So for now I’m stuck with my vintage 2007 Pioneer plasma (1024×768!). Panasonic sells their ST60 and GT60 series plasmas in 42″ sizes in the UK, but not in the US.

        As to the fantasy Apple television, unless they can provide the off-axis viewing, black levels, and color fidelity of a plasma, I’ll have to pass.

  4. Unless Apple reinvent the television and change completly the way we interact with it, no chance. They are not gonna get into the conventional television market. Even if it is 4k.

    1. H.265 and/or mpeg5 are very promising.

      Netflix and iTunes have set standards on how people consume entertainment.

      Change is inevitable. Apple is positioned for success.

      1. Disagree. The TV should be nothing more than a great display.

        Put the receiver in the AppleTV, the size of a deck of cards, so it can be upgraded every few years. The display should last the consumer a decade or more, not sent to a landfill when the receiver becomes outdated.

  5. While I’m sure Apple could make an excellent ultra high resolution (4K) TV, I do question how 4K content can stream over the US broadband network as it currently exists.

    To stream 4K content users will not only need a 4K TV, but will also need to pay a premium price for a very, very fast cable or fiber optics connection, if one is even available in their neighborhood.

    1. You have hit a very poignant point. And I consider it a tipping point. We already have incredible streaming video quality at 720p and 1080p. There is nothing crucial or even enticing about going 4K for any but the most dire of tech obsessives. The bandwidth required is WAY beyond what any average consumer can or will pay for on the current Internet.

      I continue to maintain that 4K is:
      1) A professional level resolution.
      2) Another marketing scheme to push the consumer into another high spending bracket for media consumption, much like fumbled and bumbling Blu-ray.

      I could easily seek the likes of nasty Time Warner Cable tacking on a massive user fee, due to vicious Internet bandwidth congestion caused by 4K streaming. Or TWC could use it as yet another justification for the bandwidth penalty fees they are continually trying to foist on their victim customers.

      IOW: 4K Fizzle.

      1. yet, consider :

        Improvements regarding H.265 and how people consume entertainment media these days.

        Apple is positioned for success
        and will put a dent in the universe – once again.

      2. Typo police. Please read: “I could easily SEE the likes of nasty Time Warner Cable…”

        Background: Since 2008, TWC has repeatedly attempted to overcharge customers by a markup factor of 10x for going over an arbitrary bandwidth limit. They’ve tried in it Texas on two occasion. They tried it in New York on one occasion. The resulting charges literally DOUBLE the price of watching a video over the Internet. IOW: Pay $3.99 to stream an iTunes Store video while TWC tacks on another $4.00 bandwidth fee. Total cost is $7.99 with TWC making as much as Apple while doing just about nothing to earn it.

        TWC has used a variety of names for this form of customer abuse:
        – ‘Internet Essentials’
        – ‘Usage Metering’
        – ‘Pay-Per-Use’

        I go into detail about the TWC schemes in a series of exposé articles starting here:

        http://zunipus.blogspot.com/2012/12/time-warner-cable-customer-abuse-in-our.html

    2. This is an opportunity that will help drive faster internet connectivity. It will also drive bigger and faster cloud infrastructure to support this media. This is probably one of the major drivers for all of the Apple data centers and why Intel continues to have major revenue in the data center area.

      As far as bandwidth requirements I found this:
      “It’s around 15 megabits per second,” said Hastings at the TV Conference. “It’s not too bad. If you’ve got a 50-megabit connection you’ll be fine. As an overall system load, it will grow quite slowly and steadily, giving people lots of time to build the infrastructure.”
      http://news.yahoo.com/netflix-4k-streaming-require-twice-much-bandwidth-u-152008289.html

      I personally would much rather stream this content than to rent it at a kiosk and bring it home.

      The great thing about this is that it will drive lots of innovation in all layers of the network stack, which improves things for everyone.

  6. Apple prefers to study the landscape of products that are in the wild already.

    After which, Apple then offers “improvements and true innovation” with ‘Applistic’ software and hardware that pushes a product beyond the competitors imagination.

    Lg and Samsung already have SmartTVs on the market. A few of these SmartTVs even have voice-command ability. What Apple will bring simplicity and better user experience overall.

    Example Apple did not make the mp3 player market yet offered a better device and new services. The same will occur with televison. And though Cook hates the idea of converging products – it is inevitable to happen… the iMac is the television of the future combined with iOS like features and not the complexity of OSX.

Reader Feedback

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