Linked by David Adams on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:24 UTC
Apple Today Samsung AV product lead Chris Moseley had comments about Apple's rumored entrance into the television marketplace that sound eerily similar to that which Palm CEO Ed Colligan's said a few years back about how Apple's ability to simply walk into this market and figure it out like they had managed to do after years of research.
Thread beginning with comment 507232
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
clasqm
Member since:
2010-09-23

The future of "TV" is about having exactly ONE future-proof input.

Wi-Fi.

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone. there will be a power jack (unless that goes inductive). Apple is about reducing holes in the box, not multiplying them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone.


So... No input for my Xbox360?

Fail.

Reply Parent Score: 2

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

No input for your Xbox. No input for your Wii. No input for your Blueray player. No input for your Grandpa's Betamax. No input for ANYTHING. Not even a coax cable from your old rooftop antenna will get in there.

Don't people get it? We're talking a giant iPad hanging on the wall (there's a drinking song in there somewhere). Everything you want to see and do streams from iTunes. Including games. The interface is Siri. And once you've subscribed to a service, you'll be able to see it on your iPad too. Maybe even on your iPhone.

They might keep on using the term "TV" for familiarity's sake. But it won't be TV as we've known it.

No, I have no insider knowledge, I'm extrapolating from how I've seen Apple evolve over the last decade. You don't have to like it. But they will sell millions of the things.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I would argue that Wi-Fi is not a future-proof way to transmit video streams in itself. It all depends on which protocol is used over the Wi-Fi connexion.

If a wifi connexion is used to exchange traffic using a proprietary encrypted protocols whose keys remain the property of Apple (think Airplay), then the system is not future proof because it relies on the good will of a single market actor : if Apple go bust or batshit insane, your TV becomes useless unless you are able to break through the protocol's vendor lock-in.

To the contrary, if one uses a protocol controlled by a relatively independent standard organization, supported by most major TV manufacturers, and whose spec is available for a reasonable price under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing terms (think DLNA), then an acceptable level of future-proofness may be reached.

(Well, as far as I'm concerned, the ideal situations would be if the spec was also free for non-commercial use, since not everyone has the industrial budget of $10000/yr that DLNA membership costs, but one can always dream...)

Edited 2012-02-15 08:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I doubt they would do that.

Even while an Apple TV would replace those (assuming) people would still want to connect a dvd/bluray player or even a vhs recorder.

Also game consoles like the Wii, Playstation and Xbox aren't replaced by an Apple TV, unless it's also a game console which I would find very strange. iOS games, maybe, but they are not in the same league as console games.

Overall I think Apple would cut out a lot of potential customers if they didn't provide the connectivity.

And I'd like to connect my Atari 2600!

Reply Parent Score: 3

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

The future of "TV" is about having exactly ONE future-proof input.

Wi-Fi.

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone. there will be a power jack (unless that goes inductive). Apple is about reducing holes in the box, not multiplying them.


Yay! Way to provide a useless product no one wants not to mention relying on WiFi as "future proof" is doing exactly the opposite.

Reply Parent Score: 2