[RichardFG435]

Anyone willing to make a wager on this? I think there is a damn good chance that Apples next big thing will be a HDTV. The question remains though is what would it look like, and how would it function?

Are we talking multi-touch display? Would it be glasses free 3DTV? What about OLED? Oh and of course, what would be the price point? With so much competition in the sector, can they afford to do their usual and price 33% higher than the opposition just because it is an Apple and their customer service is top notch along with build quality?

Would you pay £2000 for the 32" baseline model, £2500 for the 40" and a bank breaking £3000 for the 46"? This is a guess based on their pricing model for their other products in comparison to the competition.

[sFs4aOok]

10-15% better than a similar Sony/Panasonic. 100-200% more expensive and likely in gloss piano black or white with lots of glowy bits. It would also come with a free truckload of smug in the TV adverts.

[RichardFG435]

10-15% better than a similar Sony/Panasonic. 100-200% more expensive and likely in gloss piano black or white with lots of glowy bits. It would also come with a free truckload of smug in the TV adverts.

I agree about those adverts lol. However as much as they are smug, I actually find them quite good.

[Broorbbub]

It would be an overpriced shiny pos, that would require iTunes and would monitor which programs wou watched when and where.
Ohh and i bet due to some weird reason you couldn´t play half of the Tv channels without jailbreaking it.

[finasteride]

Are we talking multi-touch display?

No. A touch screen would be useless on a TV. People sit on the sofa to watch a TV, they don't want to have to keep getting up and going over to it to interact with it like they used to have to in the past before remotes became common place. Then there's the issue of fingerprints; they're bad enough on my iPad. On a large screen TV? No thanks.

[Broorbbub]

No. A touch screen would be useless on a TV. People sit on the sofa to watch a TV, they don't want to have to keep getting up and going over to it to interact with it like they used to have to in the past before remotes became common place. Then there's the issue of fingerprints; they're bad enough on my iPad. On a large screen TV? No thanks.

damnit i didn´t even think about that,
let me add a touch screen remote control.
which of course would be all full of fingerprints and be full of annoying software.

[VZF74G0M]

they would say they reinvented tv on the adds.

[RichardFG435]

damnit i didn´t even think about that,
let me add a touch screen remote control.
which of course would be all full of fingerprints and be full of annoying software.

Yup, this is where I think the technology would reside; in the controller. Imagine things such as swiping to change channel, pinch and zoom for picture in picture etc. Also the upscaler would be of the highest quality, so that even SD looked HD.

[Qrhzbadu]

I can't see it. Bang and Olufsen already have the luxury end of the market tied up and in this economy I don't think there is room for an unheard of (in that market) competitor.

Of course, they could boggle all of our minds and release a consumer priced product. All bets are off then.

[twinaircant]

They'll never make an HDTV.

If they do, it won't be better than others, it will just have a bunch of useless features.

When you buy a TV you want to get a display and inputs, there is no need for internet, smart tv and all those BS extras.

[aceriscoolon]

It would be freaking hell in Starbucks all over the world, hipster-douche-isheep will set up their HDTV's on their tables along with their Macbooks and iPads

[Civilrecordzz]

That would be awesome but i don't think they are going to anytime soon.

[Reocourgigiot]

They'll never make an HDTV.

If they do, it won't be better than others, it will just have a bunch of useless features.

When you buy a TV you want to get a display and inputs, there is no need for internet, smart tv and all those BS extras.

That's why companies like Samsung don't have those in their TVs.

Oh wait...

[Qrhzbadu]

They'll never make an HDTV.

If they do, it won't be better than others, it will just have a bunch of useless features.

When you buy a TV you want to get a display and inputs, there is no need for internet, smart tv and all those BS extras.

Are you even aware of the concept that there are millions upon millions of people who are intrigued by the internet but can't get online for reasons such as not being able to afford a computer as well as a TV or don't know how to use a computer.

What you mean is: When I buy a TV I want to get a display and inputs, there is no need for internet, smart tv and all those BS extras.

[tomsmuidh]

Apple only enter a new market when they see everyone else is making substandard products and they know they can make something a lot better. For example, before the iPod came along, you had basically had the choice of Creative with their CD player sized MP3 players or the small generic MP3 players that didn't have much space.

I can't really see how they can improve on what is out there and a lot of modern ones are coming with IPTV built in (so you can watch Hulu, iplayer etc on them).

[oB8LI2kP]

I remember a while ago hearing rumors that Apple was gearing up to make a huge acquisition either by attempting to take over EA or Sony - thats the only way I'd see them entering the HDTV market but I don't reckon it'll happen.

Consumer media-consumption hardware is where they are at, something they can bang out a slightly revised version every 12 months and get everyone to spend another £300-£500. I just can't see a way they could twist the logic enough to get people to buy a new TV every year.

I could imagine an Apple branded DSLR though - 3G/4G access for storing photos in the cloud as they are taken, etc.

[twinaircant]

That's why companies like Samsung don't have those in their TVs.

Oh wait...

Every manufacturer makes Smart tv's nowadays but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Are you even aware of the concept that there are millions upon millions of people who are intrigued by the internet but can't get online for reasons such as not being able to afford a computer as well as a TV or don't know how to use a computer.

What you mean is: When I buy a TV I want to get a display and inputs, there is no need for internet, smart tv and all those BS extras.

Every single SMART TV implementation is slow and limited. Not one of them even has a fully featured browser.

So these people can't afford a 200-300 euro pc yet they can afford an 1000 euro tv with smart features ?

Smart features in the TV itself limit the lifetime of the tv. When a person invests in a tv they usually keep for 3-7 years before upgrading. Smart tv will limit that because after a year or two you will still have a good tv but it's smart tv features will be too old or to slow to be updated to the latest smart tv features.

Besides that, if you wanted a SMART TV, al you need to do if get a wd tv live, roku box, small htpc, asrock nettop and a hundred other great set top boxes all of which are much better than any smart tv implementation.

[Qrhzbadu]

So these people can't afford a 200-300 euro pc yet they can afford an 1000 euro tv with smart features ?

Bingo! We have a winner!

There are hundreds of millions of people who don't know how to use a computer, or who don't want a computer that would like to watch some of the stuff they have heard about on youtube.

You don't really think that every single TV manufacturer is putting in "smart" features because the hundreds of millions they spend on feasibility studies and market research has told them that everybody hates the idea, do you?

Besides that, if you wanted a SMART TV, al you need to do if get a wd tv live, roku box, small htpc, asrock nettop and a hundred other great set top boxes all of which are much better than any smart tv implementation.

You have got to get your head around the fact that you are in the minority 5% of the worlds population that understands all these technologies. The other 95% want to be able to turn on a box and see pictures.

[twinaircant]

Bingo! We have a winner!

There are hundreds of millions of people who don't know how to use a computer, or who don't want a computer that would like to watch some of the stuff they have heard about on youtube.

You don't really think that every single TV manufacturer is putting in "smart" features because the hundreds of millions they spend on feasibility studies and market research has told them that everybody hates the idea, do you?


You have got to get your head around the fact that you are in the minority 5% of the worlds population that understands all these technologies. The other 95% want to be able to turn on a box and see pictures.

I agree with you that most people just want that but I don't think it's the way to go.

Something like a 100 euro WD live tv is plug and play as well.

There are even people who are too stupid to even connect their smart tv to the internet.

[Qrhzbadu]

I agree with you that most people just want that but I don't think it's the way to go.

Something like a 100 euro WD live tv is plug and play as well.

There are even people who are too stupid to even connect their smart tv to the internet.

Here is the main problem.

TV is a well know, proven and accepted technology and I don't even know what a WD live box is.

This is the power of marketing. People go shopping for a new TV, not a new TV and six other boxes. Therefore it makes much more sense for manufacturers to adapt an existing product than to try and push a new one into the marketplace.