[Partial]

So is this still happening or what?

This was the big rumor in February, March, April, May and June leading up to WWDC. I haven't heard a peep about this in a long time now.

After the iPad announcement, Tim Cook left the stage to a msg something like "2012: This is just the beginning" or something to that effect.

Apple is obviously coming out with the new iPhone before the holiday season. I think they are for sure releasing a smaller iPad too, but I don't know whether it makes sense to do it early in 2013 at the iPad event or to just get it done for the holidays, where they will surely sell lots of them.

If they release the mini iPad and iPhone along with iPod updates, do they even have time to release a television while giving each of their products the proper spotlight?

This is frustrating to me because I want to buy a new TV soon and would rather buy an Apple television.

[Brave Ulysses]

I don't think we will see an Apple TV this fall. Apple has a lot of product updates due in September/October that will stress their management, support, supply channels, distribution, etc. It also seems like a new product like the Apple TV would be overshadowed by an iPhone update and possible iPad mini.

I also don't know if Apple is really convinced that a traditional tv product is the way to go. In some ways I think Apple is scared of failing. Either way, Apple needs to have incredible content deals in place for it to possibly be a success. They are obviously getting there with iTunes in the Cloud support, but they are going to have to come up with a "live streaming" solution for some content.

[psmith2.0]

I'd wager a hefty sum we're not going to see an Apple-based television this fall. Or any other time, for that matter.

This is the one crazy-ass rumor I can't grasp, or buy into. I think this one, more than all the rest, is the result of serious dope-smoking and unhinged star-wishing.

I see much nicer, more capable and complete Apple TV boxes, sure. And, like normal people, we'll connect them to the millions of TVs we already own and use, and that people can actually afford.

[Partial]

This is going to happen. Tim Cook hinted at it very strongly. They know there is money to be made because Broadband is becoming more prevalent and there isn't a monopoly in broadband like there is in cable television.

I can get cable from Time Warner, or a total of 4 providers if you factor in fibre/dish (Dish Network, ATT Uverse, DirecTV, Time Warner). I can get broadband from at least 10-15 companies.

In my opinion, this has iPhone type of potential here. Maybe not right away, since people don't update TVs very often, but every house has a few TVs. I could see this being insanely huge. Apps are going to change the game. Imagine paying ESPN $3 directly per month for their channel. HAWT!

[Eugene]

Right now cable STBs tune into static channels, each with specific TV networks. This occupies a lot of spectrum and the cable companies really need to switch to streaming content dynamically rather than the broadcast method.

The 300Mbps tier Comcast announced recently will require no fewer than 8 bonded channels...things are going to get very congested.

[Brave Ulysses]

Apple just added Hulu Plus to Apple TV.

Content is sloooowly starting to fall in to place, but in a somewhat predictable manner. At this point I really don't know why they just don't open up a very limited app store for the Apple TV with strict billing requirements and limited app possibilities.

[Yontsey]

I'd love to see apps on the Apple TV like ESPN Watch, HBO GO, and some others.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Partial This is going to happen. Tim Cook hinted at it very strongly. They know there is money to be made because Broadband is becoming more prevalent and there isn't a monopoly in broadband like there is in cable television. I can get cable from Time Warner, or a total of 4 providers if you factor in fibre/dish (Dish Network, ATT Uverse, DirecTV, Time Warner). I can get broadband from at least 10-15 companies. In my opinion, this has iPhone type of potential here. Maybe not right away, since people don't update TVs very often, but every house has a few TVs. I could see this being insanely huge. Apps are going to change the game. Imagine paying ESPN $3 directly per month for their channel. HAWT!

I understand this. But why is an actual TV needed? I believe Apple's already got a solution in place, and it's small, affordable, dead easy-to-use, software-based (which means it can be added to at any time as new networks come on board - like Hulu+ just this morning), already supports subscription access, can be opened to apps and is easily kept up-to-date. It's there already. It just needs to keep adding more content and functionality over time, much of which is completely out of Apple's control or say-so. We know how this stuff works. These networks, like the music industry, are going to be resistant to change and the "new way". But the smarter ones, over time, will surely come around and realize it's not 1988 forever. It's already happening...

I said this before in another thread but why does Apple want to get into the TV-making business when it's the content, and access to it - not the size, shape, coloring, material and design of the TV itself - that truly matters. An actual TV set, no matter how cool and nicely-designed it may be, isn't necessary to address this issue. Apple's kinda already doing it with an existing product, on the software side, which is where the heart of it all truly resides.

I don't think modern HD TVs suffer from the same "WTF?!" goofball design, usability and approach as pre-iPhone cell (and smart) phones did. Apple had to do the whole widget with the iPhone, to make everything - the software and hardware - work together, especially since there was this brand new, revolutionary control and navigation approach (Multi-Touch, requiring a big, touch-friendly display). They couldn't just shoehorn iPhone OS into existing tiny-screened, button-packed 2006-2007 era smartphones sporting dozens of different specs, storage capacities, processors, battery performance, connectors, charging ports, etc. and ensure they were all computer/iTunes-aware. The iPhone required a true ground-up, new solution and approach in 2007.

But TVs aren't like this. We're not touching them, and in and of themselves they're not "lacking" or horrible. They're just a vessel, they all work basically the same (they're just a big screen already...that's pretty much what people are paying for, primarily) and if a connected Apple TV box "takes over" the control, interface, navigation and content access/acquisition, isn't that essentially the same as a full-blown Apple TV (at a fraction of the cost)?

What would Apple bring to the table, on the hardware front, to make it a "must have"? I don't know, I'm asking. If their specs are equal to, or below, what's already out there, what's the point? So they'd have to have something unique and special to them, wouldn't they? Retina Display? Built-in iSight? "Thinnest HD TV on the Planet"? While nice, are any of those true "grabbers"? Is anyone complaining their current 1080 TVs are grainy and somehow not sharp/clear enough? Seriously...what would an Apple-branded TV offer that lifts it out of "geek appeal only" territory and make it a "must buy" type of device, including those who've already plopped down good money in recent years for a nice TV?

I realize Apple making a whole solution (hardware, software, etc. all together) is preferable to many. I get that, it's nice and easy, tight, compact and idiot-proof (in theory). But "preferable" doesn't equal "necessary". Or "warranted". Especially when you have to weigh it against manufacturing, shipping, warehousing and all the other things that automatically go along with "building something". Especially a "something" that might not have strong, mass appeal and be an expensive niché product. I know Apple is the very definition, at times, of "expensive niché product", but this is different.

People don't buy (and churn through) big TVs the way they do computers, phones and handheld devices. Usually TVs are bought after much research, waiting, comparing and deliberation. And because of their size, expense (and the fact that they're bought to do just one thing, and tend to do that one thing well even after years have passed), they're not tossed or upgraded/replaced every 2-3 years like computers and other devices tend to be. Apple would be going against a tide of entrenched, practical purchasing patterns. Why would someone who's just dropped four figures last Christmas on their top-of-the-line dream TV (for their needs, budgets, room size, etc.) look to suddenly unload it to get something with an Apple logo on it (for probably hundreds of dollars more, knowing Apple) when a $99-199 box could provide the exact same function?

Think of it like Macs. People buy third-party displays all the time. Who cares? But, when hooked to a Mac, running OS X and all that goes with it, suddenly that third-party display is essentially a "Mac". You've got full access to everything that makes a Mac a Mac. Apple didn't make that display, but nobody cares and nobody insists that Apple notebooks, the Mac mini and Mac Pro must be connected to Apple displays, and nothing else, to get the "full Mac experience".

Same with TVs. Connect any modern HD flat panel TV to an Apple box and voila...there's your "Apple TV". It's the software, interface, ease-of-use and content people are after, and are struggling with, in the modern cable/satellite and TV world. A slick, silver and impossibly-thin TV set with a little chrome Apple logo on it is just icing. It's nice, but it's not required. And, frankly, if people are unable to connect one silly cable and figure out Apple's minimal remote control, then they're certainly too dim to be going the traditional route with cable/DVR boxes, satellites and the stock, built-in TV interfaces...so they probably shouldn't be buying any of this shit anyway, to begin with. Apple or otherwise. Stick with a LiteBrite or Viewmaster and call it a day.

New commercials aside, Apple probably isn't in a position to send a blue-shirted Genius over to your house to help you hook your stuff up.

I swear I'm not trying to be contrarian or argue just for the sport of it (that's Kraetos' gig ). I've just yet to have the case made for me why Apple must get into the TV-making business (beyond "because it would be cool!") when, as I see it, they're already halfway there with the tv, that can connect to any existing, and all new, HD TV purchases. Isn't that the most affordable, accessible and easiest-to-implement approach? It's like the Mac mini, but instead of BYODKM it's BYOHDTV.

I suppose Apple could make a TV in a size or two, for those who are ready to upgrade some 1994-era tube TV, sure. But are there enough of those buyers to justify a whole new manufacturing line (and let's be honest...someone holding on to a TV that long, and that old, probably isn't a likely candidate for springing for a high-end Apple offering; they're probably going to go to Walmart or Best Buy and get the most affordable LCD TV they possibly can, and then hang onto it for another decade or more). And are there enough people out there with modern, high-quality HD TVs less than five years old who'll willingly dump those just to get an Apple-branded one that might not even be as large or nicely spec'd as their existing one? I just can't see that. I can, however, see people buying $99 little black boxes - and as many as they need in a multi-TV household - that can turn their current TVs into something better and easier (and more fun) to use.

I think Apple is approaching this already from the right direction. And it only has room to grow and improve, and offer more over time as deals fall into place and more networks buy in. And, most importantly, as both networks and users start to think of television in a new, different and modern way. It's the content, and acquisition of that content, that matters. And until that changes or is addressed/improved, all the slick, gorgeous hardware in the world isn't really going to matter if you still have to connect a mountain of other devices (DVR, Tivo, Blu-ray and DVD players, etc.) - and a spaghetti nest of cables - to "improve" your TV-watching experience (or to try and wrangle Comcast, Time Warner and others into some sort of submission).

A true "Apple TV", in my mind, would involve just that...one sleek, intelligent, web-connected and "do everything" device that negated the need for all these add-ons and workarounds, and allowed you to bypass the usual suspects and their blockheaded, outmoded way of delivering content. And we're simply not there yet. Unless Steve's "I've cracked it" comment to Isaacson somehow involved just that (some secret, waiting-to-be-unveiled deal with all the networks that he managed to secure in his final year or so), we're still not quite there.

But that's the Apple TV I'd buy, sure. In a heartbeat. And someday it might be that way. You'd pay, via apps or subscription, strictly for the networks and/or programming you want, at a fair price, and you have it all piped in through one simple point without any fuss or hassle. That would be revolutionary, game-changing and all the rest...and worthy of a standalone, dedicated device that many people would feel compelled to abandon their current setups for and buy into.

I see an Apple-branded television, as things currently stand, as the most niché-y of niché products. That's a really small, targeted sliver of potential users to be chasing, IMO. Apple is better off doing it from the manageable, $99 box end - quietly sliding in, co-existing with how things currently are (but offering a nice taste of "how it could be") - until the landscape changes a bit more over time.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I understand this. But why is an actual TV needed? I believe Apple's already got a solution in place, and it's small, affordable, dead easy-to-use, software-based (which means it can be added to at any time as new networks come on board - like Hulu+ just this morning), already supports subscription access, can be opened to apps and is easily kept up-to-date. It's there already. It just needs to keep adding more content and functionality over time, much of which is completely out of Apple's control or say-so. We know how this stuff works. These networks, like the music industry, are going to be resistant to change and the "new way". But the smarter ones, over time, will surely come around and realize it's not 1988 forever. It's already happening... I said this before in another thread but why does Apple want to get into the TV-making business when it's the content - not the size, shape, coloring, material and design of the TV itself - that matters. I don't think modern HD TVs suffer from the same "WTF?!" goofball design, usability and approach as pre-iPhone cell (and smart) phones did. Apple had to do the whole widget with the iPhone, to make everything - the software and hardware - work together, especially since there was this brand new, revolutionary control and navigation approach (Multi-Touch, requiring a big, touch-friendly display). They couldn't just shoehorn iPhone OS into existing small-screen, button-filled 2006-2007 era smartphones.

I know you seem to disagree, but the same can be said for phones and tablets... and soon maybe even computers. Designs have reached minimalist perfection in many ways. Apple's difference is controlling the hardware and the software.... and now the content and billing experience as well. Apple can capitalize on these advantages on a tv the same way they have in their other devices.

Look at this way..... when has Apple ever been ok NOT controlling the whole "widget"? When has Apple ever been ok with just being a "box" connected to someone else's product.

Additionally.... there is better margin and revenue possibilities on more expensive hardware. Apple TV for $99 is a race to the bottom and may have decent margins but even if it sells in the millions, it isn't going to be anything impressive financially (kind of amazing to say that these days).

Apple needs to continue to grow and find new revenue streams to maintain growth.... obviously there is massive room left for the iPad and room left for the iPhone, but they will need to keep entering additional markets as well.

[alcimedes]

The TV of today is going to end up being the computer/media center/everything of the future, if you ask me. I can see why Apple would want to have a foot firmly planted in that door once TV's start to branch out from just dumb boxes connected to other people's hardware and data pipes.

If you want to see the wave of the future you don't need to look any further than Kansas City, where Google is rolling out high speed fibre and GoogeTV. (they just bought out the awesome DVR program Sage)

Google knows what's up. They're trying to control the entire media consumption from the pipe going into your house to the screen you watch it on, and the software you use to watch it with.

Apple is going to have to move quick.

[psmith2.0]

To be clear, I'm not against an Apple television. But I just think it would succeed, and "matter" more, if it was a true standalone, "this changes everything" product.

And for that to happen, the networks and content would have to be onboard in such a way that meant we could sit in front of our one device - the Apple TV set - and call up pretty much anything and everything, whenever we wanted...and play, pause, rewind, etc. as needed.

And that part is the tough part because it relies and hinges on these other outfits outside Apple's control.

That's why I keep harping on the content. Outside of Netflix, Hulu and ESPN and some dedicated sports-watching packages, it's not there yet.

When the pay channels and Discovery, Lifetime, Bravo, HGTV, Food Network and all the rest have "pay as you go" options via tv, and Apple can start packing and rolling these into their vision, and things really start to change and turn around, then you'll see things start to go a new, different way.

I'm not opposed to an Apple TV at all. I simply don't see the appeal in one that gets hooked up as any regular TV and acquires 90% of its content through the very places it would be nice to drop/avoid altogether (Comcast, Time Warner, etc.).

[Brave Ulysses]

and Amazon Instant Prime is now available on the iPad... which via AirPlay makes it now available on Apple TV.

Very nice.

[Eugene]

It's also available on any Mac running Mountain Lion... Still, AirPlay mirroring is hardly a solution to not having a good source of subscription TV. It's basically VNC, so you'll get compression and lower framerates in addition to being limited to the output resolution of your device.

[Brave Ulysses]

yea... and somehow Amazon seems to have successfully circumvented Airplay mirroring on iPad.... it won't work supposedly.... haven't been able to try myself.