Apple television rumored to come in 3 sizes, including 32" and 55"
appleinsider.com
appleinsider.com
1) 4K panels are still ridiculously expensive. Apple's mastered the supply chain, but not the laws of physics. Also keep in mind that anyone Apple could source 4K displays from at any useful volume will be putting them in their own TVs first.
2) Apple might have the bandwidth to handle 4K streaming. Your average home connection most certainly doesn't. Even if we're very generous and assume everyone has guaranteed 100Mb/s lines, that's still a few hairs under 3x Blu-Ray's bandwidth. You'd almost be able to pull it off if you went into overdrive on the compression. (and no other activity on your line).
And perhaps you meant iPhone 4? The iPad's resolution in terms of DPI isn't significantly higher than a decent notebook.
Another obvious course for them to follow is to allow iOS apps to run directly on the TV. They just need a new input device so users can "touch" the screen while sitting in their sofa.
But I disagree with the end of your point #1. I can absolutely believe that there's a panel manufacturer out there who would collaborate with Apple exclusively for some finite period to deliver some new tech.
To a first approximation, a Mbps is a Mbps is a Mbps when it comes to image quality. Just because you push the 4K button on your compressor doesn't make it a high quality image if you don't spot it enough bitrate to actually paint distinct pixels. You'd be far better off measuring image quality in Mbps than resolution. (Except in pathological cases where the video is overshrunk, but I'll let you know when I encounter the video stream that is just too jam packed with quality. Hasn't happened yet.)
My camera claims to take 1080P video, but it's a dirty rotten liar, in as much as I'm able to take the video coming out, cut the resolution in both directions by 2x and cut the bit rate per pixel when I reencode it, and produce a video that is indistinguishable from the original when zoomed full screen. (If you are thinking to yourself "why, that means the original video must not so much have pixels as blotches of color when looked at at the pixel level"... correct. It's what gave me this idea in the first place, and it turns 1.5GB videos that are even today somewhat annoying to store into 200MB videos that are much easier.) And I only stopped at 15% of the original size because I don't care about the last few percent and it's better to still be a bit fluffy than start cutting into real quality, but I suspect I could get it to fully 10% of the original size with only minimal quality loss.
Produce a normal quality (120 hz maybe 240 hz) HDTV with 3D capability, (Nothing special technology hardware wise)
Focus all their effort on using software to optimize the experience.
Sell for a premium which captures their target market and delivers value through experience rather than hardware.
A little white box hanging off the side of a Sony/Samsung/LG tv is not the user experience or brand experience that Apple want to give you. They want their white shiny logo, in the goddamn middle of your 50 inch TV bezel.
I'm sure they could use iTunes to push songs onto something that is not an iPod too. They don't want to give you that. They don't want to give you a patched together experience at a low price point. Nothing they do is about that. They want to give you an integrated apple experience.
Anyone with the mindset of "my tv works fine... unlikely to replace" is probably not their target audience.
I have a buddy that will buy anything new, regardless if he needs it or not. He, is why they make these shiny gadgets.
TVs nowadays have absolutely atrocious navigation and remote controls, and it seems absurd that everyone needs to educate themselves on what a DVB-B, C, and T tuners are. TVs today are marketed as "it looks great", not "it just works".
Most people can't tell the different image qualities aside, unless they are completely abhorrent (probably because retail stores tend to give cheaper TVs an analogue signal to sell the expensive ones), and it's the reason why we have to suffer the "Dynamic" video setting on our TVs.
That people in select countries will also know that they can get help from the Apple Geniuses probably also helps a bunch - tech support in this regard is a pain in the ass.
Besides, I am sure that the iTVs will be somewhat unlike what we are used to - for one, I have a Panasonic plasma AND a PS3, and I am still left with no TV browser worth the effort.
The hub-like experience is going to be incredibly interesting, but the price and image quality will still be very important to people more in the know about these things like your median HN user.
But I am excited, because it will give everyone a kick in the ass to raise the bar, regardless of whether I buy one.
A typical remote has about fifty buttons on it. I have several and there are buttons on it I have never used, nor can think of any conceivable use for them in the future. Why do I need DVD buttons on my TV remote when it doesn't support the PS3, for instance?
When people shop for TVs the most important thing, even beyond picture quality, is can you figure out the menus? What use is a super high-def 120hz screen if it's running your television shows all stretched and blurry anyway because you have the wrong aspect ratio selected?
And the UI's haven't evolved much in recent years. My TV menus (volume, change source, etc.) look like they run on the same software as an old ATM. I like Tivo, but it hasn't changed much in over a decade and is looking really dated.
The real opportunity lies in the integration options with other devices, like my computer, my iPhone, iPad, etc. But in order to realize it, Apple has to shove other TV manufacturers out of the way.
It all pretty much just works.
Not that I think Apple is going out with TV's. The content situation is still iffy, and I'm not really sure if Apple can do anything about the pure shit interfaces DirectTV and the cable companies put on their services.
apple has a vision, they make a product with as few compromises to that vision as they can. if that doesn't work for you, apple doesn't care. they'll still sell tons.
In fact, the way I imagined Apple could get into the TV business would be to partner with an existing manufacturer to make TVs that are basically glorified iPod docks, and Apple would make an Apple TV "3.0" that fits into that dock. The TV supplies it power and an infra-red signal, and the Apple TV supplies the picture. Sony, LG or Panasonic could be a launch partner, but the aim would be to have every manufacturer clamouring to make compatible sets (as happens now with iPod speaker docks).
For the TV manufacturers, the advantage is they have another feature bullet-point to promote their hardware (TV manufacturers love their bullet-points and overly hyped feature names).
For Apple, it means they can stay in the business of selling $100 enabling devices for the iTunes store, rather than selling heavy, bulky TVs with razor thin margins.
I would love it if they did this, but it doesn't sound like The Apple Way. I think they really do want you to replace your whole TV set every couple years. Or, they'll pack enough features and performance into the starting model that it will last 3-5 years before becoming obsolete.
And to be honest, the kind of electronics involved in this stuff isn't that expensive (to make). More so by the time you're ready to buy your second.
That's the problem: a $1,000 LCD panel that works fine coupled to $50 worth of obsolete electronics isn't a good idea.
At the very least, the article opened my eyes to the possibility that we might not get an iPad in late Q1 to early Q2.