Apple's new ‘iTV' confirmed by Foxconn CEO

It’s the stuff of legend. It’s the rumour that just won’t quit. It’s on the wishlist of every Apple fanboy (and secretly on the wishlist of a few Microsoft and Google fanboys too).

But today, it’s become much more than that. The new Apple television set – often referred to as the ‘iTV’ – has been confirmed, not by a dubious unidentified source, but by the next best thing to Apple itself: the chairman and CEO of Foxconn, Terry Gou. If you’ve been off-planet for the last few years, you may need to be reminded that Foxconn is Apple’s principal manufacturing partner.

China Daily reports that Gou was speaking at a news conference in Shanghai when he confirmed that the company is already making preparations for the new Apple television, although Foxconn has apparently not yet begun full development or manufacturing of the device. This would appear to cast significant doubt over the likelihood of its arrival this year; some reports have suggested that it may not arrive until as late as 2014.

The China Daily report adds that the ‘iTV’ will feature aluminium construction, Siri voice interaction and FaceTime video calling. This matches a recent report from a source who claimed last week to have seen the device in action, likening it to an oversized Apple Cinema Display.

via TNW // image via Cult of Mac


MAKE SURE YOU ALSO CHECK OUT...

> The future of TV might just be Apple-shaped
> Yes, it's mad - but Apple could become a mobile operator

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia Reading app launching this week for Lumia phones

Next Story

"What's the best cell phone ever?" Siri: Lumia 900

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If they want to market it as a premium tv device, it will likely have to have 3840x2160 resolution ... siri and access to the app store will also be a big selling point.

I'm still skeptical. First, there is so much choice available in regards to screen sizes, consumers' space requirements and so on I don't think that a "one size fits all" approach would work. Second, they already have TV & Display products - Apple TV & Thunderbolt display - allowing the two products to interface sounds more plausible. Third, Broadcast is on the way out and Streaming is in, I don't think that Apple will make any compromises here as this is the strategy they have been pushing.

It's the stuff of legend. It's the rumour that just won't quit.

I remember reading about Google Drive rumors back in 2004, and it finally materialized this year. So maybe we'll get lucky and this will be the year the legends come to life.

The "iTV," would have to have some pretty compelling, forward thinking ideas put into it before I've consider replacing my Samsung LED/Apple TV set up (Samsung and Apple?! I know, thankfully the world hasn't exploded yet.) that I don't spend most of my time behind.

It would be quite a neat integrated solution especially with Siri, camera etc. against a TV with Kinect and Xbox for example which is cumbersome by comparison forgetting the motion controls.

Still think it's a tough sell considering how expensive TVs actually are and what Apple will price one at for not a lot of extra features.

As for the name, yes we know iTV is taken in the UK but it's simple to describe it as such at this point.

They could call it

Apple TV - Yes, it already exists but it can evolve into an actual TV if Apple kills it.
Apple Vision
Apple Cinema


Edited by oceanmotion, May 11 2012, 4:07pm :

I don't see why apple rumours gets posted. Apple are very good and keeping stum about their products and the rumours usually aren't true or aren't any where near the full product.

And as said, this won't be called iTV!
ITV in the UK was Launched 22 September 1955 along with that they have ITV player as well.

Apple would rather call it something else like they did with the product they already have which is called apple TV.

Apple HDTV without content deals = expensive monitor.

And any deal that comes just to the HDTV and not the Apple TV is even sillier.

Can only seeing this one appealing to fan boys. Video calling is probably the only feature that would get the public's attention. I suppose this TV would also include that streaming protocol Apple use for their mobile and tablets. The TV market is already very saturated, and I can't see it having any killer features that would render the current sets useless (considering that recent TV sets are "smart" anyway). Even if it had OLED, I can't see many people upgrading for a slightly better picture.

IMHO, the Ubuntu TV has more chance of success then this assuming that the TV will include Apple tax.

ShMaunder said,
Can only seeing this one appealing to fan boys. Video calling is probably the only feature that would get the public's attention. I suppose this TV would also include that streaming protocol Apple use for their mobile and tablets. The TV market is already very saturated, and I can't see it having any killer features that would render the current sets useless (considering that recent TV sets are "smart" anyway). Even if it had OLED, I can't see many people upgrading for a slightly better picture.

IMHO, the Ubuntu TV has more chance of success then this assuming that the TV will include Apple tax.

You say this, but I guarantee you'll see like-for-like features in other Televisions once the announcement is made. Say what you like but Apple is a trendsetter in many aspects.

John. said,

You say this, but I guarantee you'll see like-for-like features in other Televisions once the announcement is made. Say what you like but Apple is a trendsetter in many aspects.

Same happened when some manufacture decided to push a 3D set, and look what happened, everyone decided to copy and it flopped. Trying to sell a product that for most people lasts about 15 years (TVs), compared to a product that most people replace in under 3 years (Mobiles, Computers) is a very different market. Computers, add-on boxes and Smart TVs are currently being used to replace regular terrestrial TV albeit at a slow pace. Looking at the appalling results from Sony and Panasonic shows the industry is very saturated, so unless Apple has some invention that is so mind blowing that it would impress OAPs, I would see this being a flop. Though as I said, the only thing looking feasible is the video conference feature.

sanke1 said,
If it is just an oversized cinema display, what's the hold up?

There is no proof that is "all it is."

Geez ... for the millionth time, this product WON'T be called "iTV".

The UK's biggest and longest running commercial TV network will NOT allow it.

DJGM said,
Geez ... for the millionth time, this product WON'T be called "iTV".

The UK's biggest and longest running commercial TV network will NOT allow it.

Seriously, who gives a sh*t about a freaking TV station name used in the UK ? Please stop with your stupid argument, damn.

DJGM said,
Geez ... for the millionth time, this product WON'T be called "iTV".

The UK's biggest and longest running commercial TV network will NOT allow it.


Where is your proof regarding this? With the amount of money Apple now have, they might possibly be able to strike some kind of deal with them. The current Apple TV isn't a decent enough product for Apple to spend that amount of money on, but this rumoured TV could be a greatly selling product.

It seems as if you're assuming too much.

mr1nv1s1ble said,

Seriously, who gives a sh*t about a freaking TV station name used in the UK ? Please stop with your stupid argument, damn.

The point is, Apple like a universal name for their products. If ITV had zero to do with actual TV broadcasting then it might be a different matter but as they've been running for over 50 years and already have an 'ITV Player' then you can see why this might cause confusion for the end user. Not just in the UK as well, simple Google searches for ITV would be a mish mash of results for both. Changing this simply to Apple TV (Or whatever their marketing department decide on) would be no less catchy and avoid any legal or end user confusion.

It's best to think outside your own country/bubble sometimes

mr1nv1s1ble said,

Seriously, who gives a sh*t about a freaking TV station name used in the UK ? Please stop with your stupid argument, damn.

Want to stop being to arrogent?

DJGM said,
Geez ... for the millionth time, this product WON'T be called "iTV".

The UK's biggest and longest running commercial TV network will NOT allow it.

Apple iTelevision

Problem solved.

mr1nv1s1ble said,

Seriously, who gives a sh*t about a freaking TV station name used in the UK ? Please stop with your stupid argument, damn.

The issue is that it's not just the name of a TV station - it is the name of a TV network (ITV Network Limited / ITV Broadcasting Limited), a content maker (ITV Studios) and a media company (ITV plc).

Apple may well use the name iTV - but not in the UK.
Or they could just buy ITV and rename them iTV.

Having said that - the name iTV suggests that it's just a TV.
Maybe iPanel would be more suitable (iPhone, iPod, iPad, iP...)

mr1nv1s1ble said,

Seriously, who gives a sh*t about a freaking TV station name used in the UK ? Please stop with your stupid argument, damn.

If I recall at the first Apple TV announcement Steve let slip a few times 'iTV' instead of Apple TV. It was originally meant to be called iTV all along but they had to change the name. So yeh, people do care and I can guarantee you it wont be called iTV in the UK.

edit: here's the youtube video of Steve referring to the original Apple TV as iTV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ge&v=X_oz3DdLkG4#t=144s

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
want to learn to spell arrogant?

Oops, made a typo. My bad, but my point is still valid. The person points out a valid argument that Apple won't be granted the iTV name because of ITV being such a massive content producer and distributor in the UK, and he was just being arrogant, swearing and not proving a valid point in return.

DJGM said,
Geez ... for the millionth time, this product WON'T be called "iTV".

Each instance of this being used in the article is surrounded by single quotes ( 'iTV' ) and it says "often referred to as," meaning that this is not the product's name. The presence of the single quotes indicates that the surrounded text is being used for a different meaning in this context.

Actually, he's correct. Too in this case would mean "in excess." He's referring to the OP you quoted, not your post.

metal_dragen said,

Actually, he's correct. Too in this case would mean "in excess." He's referring to the OP you quoted, not your post.
DOH! I didn't even notice the "too" problem there, the "arrogent" was so distracting. Sorry @Cyborg_X, thought you were talking about my comment.