|
|
Post by thepcguy on Apr 3, 2013 14:38:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robprentiss on Apr 4, 2013 1:21:35 GMT -5
This is how you know the writer doesn't know what he's talking about. This will never happen. If the tv can stream to other devices, it would be iPads and other apple devices. Apple would not make such expensive single purpose accessories, considering the cost it would cost to produce them.
Why make something like that when they can just sell more iPads, iPhones, and Macs to customers instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on Apr 4, 2013 1:48:37 GMT -5
Excellent point. No way in hell.
I seriously doubt the TV will materialize either. It doesn't make much sense. It's a low margin product that's not frequently replaced. People have a pretty broad set of needs for different sizes. For everything else except for the display itself, the Apple TV form factor already has the ability to deliver anything that might be imagined (except for a built-in camera I guess).
|
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Apr 4, 2013 11:22:02 GMT -5
Funny how it is always stock analysts, who know nothing about technology, predicting apples future product strategy. I agree that bringing an apple TV to market that would not support the current product ecosystem would be idiotic. The article is also devoid of any detail that would suggest this new apple tv is reinventing the viewing experience. I would hope it is more than the ability to view video on a tablet or controlling the TV with your finger. These are all things that could be done yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 4, 2013 18:48:40 GMT -5
I like the concept of wireless portability of television that can be viewed on iPads, MacBooks and iPhones. In our house we have 7 such iDevices and adding a television that supported wireless communication with them would be attractive. For example, last weekend I had to interrupt watching a football game on cable while I fired up the BBQ. It would have been great if I could have just grabbed an iPad, synch'd it with the television and taken it with me.
In my house we actually have far more money invested in iPhones. iPads and MacBooks then we do in televisions. So, as well as in the practical sense, paying slightly more for a televison that added value to the iDevices has some appeal.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on Apr 4, 2013 18:58:39 GMT -5
Your example is exactly the type of thing that Apple TV could support in its existing form factor as a set-top box.
I think it's incredibly unlikely Apple will do anything with broadcast or cable TV – it could only be something based on streaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 4, 2013 20:41:56 GMT -5
Your example is exactly the type of thing that Apple TV could support in its existing form factor as a set-top box. I think it's incredibly unlikely Apple will do anything with broadcast or cable TV – it could only be something based on streaming. I have an ATV3 and I've always considered it a "one way" device, it gathers data (from iDevices) and ports in through its HDMI connection to my UMC-200. It doesn't disseminate data to iDevices. What would be cool is an ATV in reverse, in that it that takes HDMI input from my UMC-200 output and then disseminates that data out to iDevices. So no matter what I am watching or listening to, if I have to leave the room for some reason, I can take it with me to anywhere in wifi range. That works OK for me (ATV + UMC-200) but not so good for people with just a television (no processor). That's why I think the Apple Television would be a better mass market idea. No connections required, it just sends out whatever is on its screen + sound via wifi to any iDevice in range. Just as cool as an ATV in reverse but with a bigger audience. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Apr 4, 2013 21:04:09 GMT -5
Your example is exactly the type of thing that Apple TV could support in its existing form factor as a set-top box. I think it's incredibly unlikely Apple will do anything with broadcast or cable TV – it could only be something based on streaming. I have an ATV3 and I've always considered it a "one way" device, it gathers data (from iDevices) and ports in through its HDMI connection to my UMC-200. It doesn't disseminate data to iDevices. What would be cool is an ATV in reverse, in that it that takes HDMI input from my UMC-200 output and then disseminates that data out to iDevices. So no matter what I am watching or listening to, if I have to leave the room for some reason, I can take it with me to anywhere in wifi range. That works OK for me (ATV + UMC-200) but not so good for people with just a television (no processor). That's why I think the Apple Television would be a better mass market idea. No connections required, it just sends out whatever is on its screen + sound via wifi to any iDevice in range. Just as cool as an ATV in reverse but with a bigger audience. Cheers Gary I think you have nailed it. I was thinking about the same thing. The iTV will broadcast whatever is playing/showing - be it a movie from Blu-Ray, Cable programming, etc. My wife will love this. She can watch Dancing with the Stars at the Home Theater then run to the kitchen and watch the show on a Tablet. Or at the laundy room, the bedroom, the toilet, the garage... |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Apr 6, 2013 13:14:56 GMT -5
Wouldn't streaming to an iThing just require building something like a Slingbox into the TV? They're pretty cheap and I can currently use my iPad to watch anything on my DVR (live or recorded).
|
|
