

The questions no one ever asks about the mythical Apple HDTV - anderzole
http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/12/the-questions-no-one-ever-asks-about-the-mythical-apple-hdtv/

======
bsaul
The end of the article maybe got it right : what if the apple tv really was
just the Apple Tv ? The one already being sold. Jobs was quoted as saying that
he finally found the solution to TV. What if it meant to completely separate
any kind of intelligence from the big heavy screen to move it aside in a small
easy to replace box ?

That would be funny. People gossiping about a product without realizing it's
already on sale :)

------
capkutay
The analysts and tech media pundits always bring up a possible watch or TV as
apple's next blockbuster, game changing product. But making TVs by itself
doesn't sound like a good business decision to me. It would be hard to
maintain healthy margins if they have to fragment their hardware production to
cover something as costly as making next generation, HD televisions.

I guess the only real upside of an Apple TV (for Apple), is that its in their
most critical interest to be in every media and communication interaction of
one's day to day life. If Apple makes your phone, your computer, your tablet,
your car's software, your music player AND your TV, they will pretty much have
a figurative monopoly over your attention and an endless spectrum to sell you
things via iTunes. Given that, tighter margins might be somewhat of a trade
off for more presence in the life of an Apple user/Apple using family.

------
josephlord
I've written similar things myself in the past[0].

The bit missed by the article is the complexity of supporting global
broadcasts so I think an AppleTV would be IP (and HDMI) only.

I'm sure the UI would be great but you don't use the UI much on a TV, you out
what you want on and then you watch.

I argued that the best reason to enter the TV market would be to hurt Samsung
rather than to make big profits.

Of course, mobile phone pundits got the iPhone wrong so it is possible that
I'm completely wrong.

[0] [http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market-
challenges](http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market-challenges)

~~~
pjc50
TV that doesn't pick up broadcast TV = huge market failure.

It's not _that_ hard, you only need a couple of different options (
[https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide](https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide) )
which could be implemented on a daughterboard PCB as wireless often is.

~~~
josephlord
It is harder than you think and it isn't a hardware issue. It is software but
annoying finicky differences. DVB has a huge range of options and different
settings/modes/behaviours are mandated in different markets. Even in Europe
there are the DtG requirements in the UK (Ireland has similar requirements),
Nordig that covers Scandanavia but even within that there are particular
certification requirements for RiksTV in Norway. Italy has particular
requirements including MHP support. CI (common interface) support is mandatory
on European TVs. UI affecting details too such as the quantity and validity of
EPG data, whether channel reordering is allowed (actually channel numbering is
something that there are many different ways to broadcast).

Don't get me wrong, Apple could do this if they wanted to but it is the sort
of hard gruntwork boring, almost pointless tweaking to globalise products that
I think they wouldn't do. They would just give you a TV that could access
sufficient IP services to be valuable rather than dilute the experience by
handling broadcast.

Many people already do not connect their TV to a broadcast signal, especially
in the US but in many other areas where STB based pay TV is common. It might
not be as much of a showstopper as you think and if anyone can get away with
it Apple can.

~~~
gnaffle
Then again, Apple had the same problem with the iPhone. They managed to solve
it by lanching in a few countries first and working tightly with selected
mobile operators.

I agree that it's hard, but they've shown the willingness to do hard and
boring things before and take their time, launching in markets when they're
ready (look at how long it took them to launch on Verizon).

However, the cable and sattelite providers also have a huge interest in
pushing their own set-top boxes loaded with their streaming services etc. So I
think the real issue isn't just software, it's politics and contract
negotiations.

I don't think Apple is going to be happy with a situation where customer spend
90% of their time pushing buttons on a non-Apple remote control. So they
probably won't be relying on set-top boxes unless they think they have such a
compelling story on the content side that most people won't bother with the
set-top box.

~~~
josephlord
I mostly agree with you. It isn't impossible but I still don't think that they
will as they know the profit on the table isn't all that large.

TVs aren't as bad as phones were when the iPhone launched. Browsers were
rubbish, data cost pounds per Megabyte and screens were small. The iPhone was
disruptive. An Apple TV which did not come with enough content available to
ignore broadcast/STBs would be competitive at the high end but not disruptive.
And the vast bulk of the market is low end (well under $1000). I could be
wrong but I don't see the room for Apple blockbuster in that market.

------
theguycalledtom
Apple hasn't had trouble selling 27"/30" Displays and iMacs before, if they
can handle those, they can handle a HDTV display. An Apple TV Set just needs
two things:

1\. Input ZERO for Airplay. When you airplay a video from your phone/iPad, the
TV turns on automatically and starts playing the video without you having to
find the crappy TV and receiver remotes and switching to the right input.

2\. The ability to upgrade easily by just plugging in a new $99 puck whenever
you want to take advantage of a new service that requires more processing
speed.

~~~
Steko
These features aren't going to produce Apple margins in the TV space.

------
gfodor
I'm pretty sure if we ever see the Apple TV, it will be an entirely different
UX than what we have become accustomed to. Just like you don't compare your
smart "phone" with a classic "phone", you probably won't compare your Apple TV
with a classic TV. They will be the same only in name and form factor, but the
experience and functionality will be much different.

~~~
collyw
Please can we stop referring to "experiences" when we are talking about
operating a gadget? I can't see how the "experience" will differ much anyway.
You sit in front of a TV and watch it. The only bit that Apple are likely to
change is the navigation, which is interacting with the interface for a few
seconds before watching the show you want.

~~~
mercer
It seems to me that it's exactly 'experience' of a gadget that has become more
and more important, now that non-geeks are using them en masse. And more and
more companies are finally realizing that.

Before, the 'consumer' didn't care that his computer was a beige box that
required cryptic text commands to work. Now, in large part because Apple
(among others) has focused on the 'experience', my grandma is using computers
(a tablet, for now).

Before, I had friends ask me how important feature x was when buying an 'mp3
player', and advertisements focused on megapixels and memory and whatnot. Now,
people expect their music player to be designed for ease of use, ease of
syncing, and pleasant to the senses. I don't remember the last time anyone
asked me about megapixels.

The 'only bit' Apple did with the iPhone, I'd say, was to change the way you
interact with the device. Most individual components in themselves were subpar
compared to other devices on the market, and I'm not event sure if the
touchscreen was particularly innovative. And yet, it not only made Apple a ton
of money, it literally changed in a short time how people relate to
'computers'.

Honestly, if I take a step back, I'm still amazed at how a company that
focuses mainly on 'experiences' has played a crucial role in transforming
society's relation to technology in such a short time. I still recall a time,
not long before the iPhone, where I was self-conscious about using a PDA with
a calendar and whatnot, because that was such a nerdy thing to do.

Even if you don't care that much about 'experiences' (I myself don't, to a
degree, what with using the command-line whenever I can), it's difficult to
argue that it's not important.

~~~
collyw
Its like recruitment consultants. They never have an job, they have an
"opportunity".

Technically it is correct but we don't need to overemphasize everything.

------
rsync
You know which product is overdue for apple-style innovation ?

The macbook air.

~~~
iambateman
And the thunderbolt display dangit. $999 is too damn high.

------
iambateman
This assumes that all a TV needs is picture quality. But a TV could & should
show dynamic content by knowing the difference between me and my roommate.

Or what about enabling augmented experiences with my phone?

There's plenty of room for innovation outside of just a quality picture.

------
Steko
I think the Apple TV will be elliptical and so instead of sometimes having
black bars when fitting content's resolution you'll always have four (active)
parabolic edges (of varying size) that can display various info --
time/channel/chapter/url/subtitles/your friends' faces/etc.

The main reason for making an oval tv will of course be the novelty and design
patent protection.

~~~
pjc50
Like the [http://keracolor.blogspot.co.uk/](http://keracolor.blogspot.co.uk/)
? (1968)

~~~
Steko
I imagine we'll see a lot of this in 2021 from Samsung apologists when the
trial gets underway.

