Editorial

The future of TV might just be Apple-shaped

As disputes rage on between Samsung and Apple over alleged patent infringements on smartphones and tablets, yesterday saw some humour creep into the fight, as Samsung launched a new ad campaign that poked fun at Apple's devoted fanbase. But Samsung remains serious about asserting its dominance across multiple sectors, and amid fresh reports that Apple will release a new HDTV next year, Samsung confirmed that it is planning to launch new ‘smart TVs’ powered by Google TV.

Yoon Boo-keun, president of Samsung’s TV division, revealed to Reuters that the company has been working with Google on its next generation of connected televisions, which will use the search giant’s Google TV software to provide access to web content, music, video, apps and games, all built into the TV set without the need for additional hardware.

Google and Samsung are old friends, of course, having extensively collaborated in the smartphone space on the flagship Android handsets, Nexus S and the new Galaxy Nexus. Samsung showed off a Blu-Ray player with Google TV built in at CES in January, but has yet to bring it to market.


Could the new Samsung-Google collaboration give us a Nexus-branded TV?

Google TV has had something of a troubled existence so far and has yet to make its mark on an increasingly competitive market. Logitech launched its Revue set-top box powered by Google TV earlier this year. Two weeks ago, Logitech CEO Guerrino de Luca announced the end of the venture, calling it “a mistake of implementation of a gigantic nature”, and condemning Google TV as “a beta product [that] cost us dearly”. In fact, Logitech’s losses related to the project totalled $100m (£64m GBP / €75m EUR). Ouch.

Samsung clearly believes they can do things better, and their close collaboration with Google may be the key to their success. Yoon Boo-keun explained that Samsung’s implementation of Google TV would differ from those of other manufacturers. He added that Samsung will show off its next-gen TV products with new OLED displays at CES 2012 in a few weeks, but it’s not yet known if these will have Google TV built in.

The tepid reaction to Google TV products so far provide an opportunity for Apple to swoop in and offer something 'revolutionary' in the TV space. Apple already has a TV product on offer, of course – the imaginatively named Apple TV – but this plug-in device has so far been, by the company’s own admission, "just a hobby".


Don't believe the hype - it's not actually a TV at all. I mean, it hasn't even got a screen.

Ever since the revelation in Steve Jobs’ biography that he had claimed to have ‘cracked’ the best way to build an easy-to-use connected set, talk of Apple producing a full television, with software and connectivity built in, has increased. BGR reports that an analyst note to clients from Jefferies & Company indicates that Apple’s high definition TV set will go into production in February 2012, using Sharp display panels, and going on sale in the middle of next year.


Ooh, pretty. And revolutionary, magical etc.

It’s certainly possible that Apple will bring a HDTV to market. Another possibility – perhaps a more likely one – is that the company will simply make its existing Apple TV product better. How? Siri, of course.

The next version of Microsoft’s Xbox UI introduces voice controls that encourage users to search for content – games, music, TV shows, movies and more – by simply asking for it. Although Siri’s capabilities on the iPhone 4S remain somewhat limited at the moment, it’s not difficult to imagine them being transferred and expanded to the big screen in the same way that Microsoft is doing with the Xbox. Given the extraordinary excitement among iPhone 4S users over what Siri can do now, it's not hard to imagine how a better, more capable Siri might make the TV experience more 'magical' for consumers.

The television experience is ripe for disruption, and Apple's recent product history is a testament to its ability to shake up sectors that have fallen into a lull of stagnation. Microsoft's approach to TV has been typically cautious; careful not to rock the boat, it's got into bed with various content providers, but its product is shaped very much as an add-on for Xbox gamers, not a product that you need to go out and buy to make your TV even better. And Google TV has convincingly failed to live up to its promise to improve television so far; whether Samsung can make a better go of it remains to be seen.

But with Samsung now throwing its weight behind Google TV, and Microsoft working to expanding its interest in delivering content to televisions through the Xbox - and possibly even TVs with Kinect integration - Apple’s TV ambitions can’t really remain on the sidelines. Whether Apple eventually delivers a big screen, or a new little box, remains uncertain, but it seems by far the best placed to offer a truly compelling product, one that might just change the face of TV across the market.

It looks like the fight to capture the TV space will really get going next year. When it all kicks off, it’s going to be a sight to see – and you’ll be able to watch it all in the comfort of your own home.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 95 start up music composed on a Mac

Next Story

Microsoft's Bing Rewards program update on the way

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

How fun ignorance must be. It lets people write fiction and present it as factual history while 'ignoring' reality and their lack of technical understanding.

Fun stuff, now can we get an article from someone that could pass a CS 101 course?

I feel sorry for this journalist. Wow windows fans are an ugly lot. I feel ashamed to be one. My LG TV can "access the internet" but it does it in a really clumsy way. Maybe Apple will make it easier to use like they did the phone/ipod.

The future of TV may be no TV at all. History has shown that science fiction shapes the course of the future in terms of technology.

Either way, I don't believe that Apple will do anything "revolutionary". They'll just market it better. Apple proves that a masterful marketing department can translate volumes into real-world profit. "Don't worry about doing it better. Do it just as good and market it better!" That should be Apple's slogan.

Also, while I don't agree with all the abuse going on in the comments. I do agree that if you don't like the article, don't read it. It's the people who make a point to go out of their way and complain who are taking the freedoms away from the rest of us who know how to IGNORE what we don't like. Being able to ignore the things that bother you is what separates the educated individual from the ignorant oaf.

What, buy into a proprietary system where Apple has walled the garden off yet again, keep us in the same chokehold that Cable has had on us for 20+ years?

Pffft another useless Neowin editorial. Apple TV has been around for some time and is nowhere near a hit. Goodle TV has been pronounced a nightmare by many. The real winner in computer/living room is at the moment and will likely continue to be MS with Media Centre / Xbox 360

trip21 said,
Pffft another useless Neowin editorial. Apple TV has been around for some time and is nowhere near a hit. Goodle TV has been pronounced a nightmare by many. The real winner in computer/living room is at the moment and will likely continue to be MS with Media Centre / Xbox 360

Indeed, Apple TV has been around for a long time, but given Apple's appeal in the market, and the fact that consumers are literally falling in love with Siri, there's a lot of potential for them to turn it into something more successful.

And you're quite right - Google TV is indeed horrific in my experience, and there's not much love for it anywhere.

But I honestly don't see the Xbox proposition ruling the market. The voice integration is there, but it relies on a very particular syntax. "Xbox, Bing, Shrek". It's much, much better with the Fall Dashboard Update, but it falls short of the Siri approach of 'intelligent' interaction, whereby you can ask for something in any number of different ways. To us techies, that isn't a big deal; but to the average buyer - and particularly the buyer that Apple would target with a Siri-powered Apple TV product - that's the difference between a product that's functional and a product that's "magical", and that's what gives it mainstream appeal.

Additionally, Xbox Live TV is based on a fairly narrow range of content offerings through negotiated partnerships; it's not a catch-all solution for all your TV needs. In the UK, for example, there's no Netflix, and TV content will come from the BBC, Channel 4 and Channel 5. There's no participation from ITV, which broadcasts some of the UK's biggest and most popular shows, such as The X-Factor, Downton Abbey, Coronation Street, and I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here.

That's an incomplete TV offering. To get the most out of live TV on the Xbox, you need to already have a subscription to a service like U-Verse or Sky Go, which is nice for turning the Xbox into an extra set top box or streaming device to another room, but isn't transforming or improving TV in any substantial way. And it's not really a compelling reason for consumers to run out and buy an Xbox either, so it's unlikely that there'll be the kind of explosive and immediate growth in reach (i.e. hardware sales) that Apple sees when it puts pretty much any of its products on the market.

That's why I believe that Apple is best placed to shake up TV. They have a huge market presence, and they've demonstrated a willingness and ability to disrupt sectors with products that change the way people do things or just make things easier. Xbox isn't doing that, and Google sure isn't doing that. I'm not saying that I like it, I'm just saying that's how it is.

Personally, I don't really like the parochial and one-way-or-no-way approach of Apple, which is why I don't own any of their products, but there's no denying they get results, and they sure know how to shake things up when they try.

I'm actually really looking forward to getting Live TV on my Xbox (it's not yet enabled on the preview version I have installed - grrr!) - it may not revolutionise TV as we know it, but it'll be nice for me to get BBC content to my bedroom TV without it coming through a dodgy aerial!

I don't really see Apple making a TV simply because it's not the sort of product people upgrade/replace every 2-4 years. People generally buy a TV and that's it for a while.

well, to his defence, apple did change the phone market when people said "ya right whatever" before they launched the iphone. Same with the Ipad for tablets, and the Ipod for music player. So you never know what could happen.

Well, there's nothing wrong to say that Apple is an amazing company - after all it did change the smartphone industry. The point is that the brand is over-idolized and this "disease" has spread to neowin.net, which I used to think is immune of it. iSee, iHear, iEat, iDrink, i****... Come, that's really enough.

The article is an editorial, which means it can (must) be kind of subjective. But adding all these editorials and meaningless "news" together has made neowin.net a poor site. The news has to be fresh, unique and meaningful. Personally speaking, neowin.net used to be the place I check out regularly to see what's buzzing in the industry and get inspirations from those amazing minds and for now it's just a place I seldom visit to see if I missed some tips this week. Just personal opinions, no offence.

nothing wrong with the title. It doesn't really say anything. It might just be pear shaped too.
it's controversial and does it's job as we can see from the comments. It's an editorial and not news after all. Might as well go to the Apple website and read, or the Samsung website. The future is rather unpredictable. Apparently it is very difficult to write an unbiased editorial.

The editorial has NO base and is just a nonsense future prediction.

It may come true and Neowin will link back to this article saying "We told you so"
It may not come true and Neowin wont say it was wrong.

I think maybe the title of this website neoWIN would lead followers to believe that this site is about Windows, not about pandering headlines to **** Winboys off and incite readership and comments in the name of driving traffic to please advertisers.

But when you read the "about us" section below: ""Neowin.net, launched in October 2000 by Steven Parker & Marcel Klum, is a technology news website that actively focuses on Windows, PCs, Mac and Linux. Neowin runs under the slogan "Where unprofessional journalism looks better."

You start to wonder that if they only changed the name of the site, they might not get so much fanboy feedback when articles talk about Apple products. In case the Neowin editors didn't notice, theres a bit of animosity between the two.

I love MS more than any fanboy in here, but if they don't get this Live TV on Xbox right, they are once again going to let Apple right in the front door.

yup...it changed a lot since...well i don't know, but has been a long time since this site was more news driven and less Apple fanboish. i actually miss the days of "unprofessional journalism", when news were...well, news and not personal opinions based on nothing but air.

Just one question: What happened to Neowin? Around one month ago there's a superb journal which is Microsoft centered, always updated, inspiring and Fanboy-free. And Suddenly it became full of crap, slow and twisted.
What's about Lumia Sales in Europe? I don't know. What's about Windows Live Skydrive's future plan? I don't know either. What's I got? My ****Ing ancient Windows 95 pc's theme song is written on a mac and the future is all about Apple. SO WHAT?

Indeed, there are clearly some stories that we miss (including Lumia European coverage), but the focus has shifted away considerably from publishing Apple articles in recent weeks, and we are trying to focus on the stories that matter, while still offering a variety of content that will interest everyone.

Remember, though: you may not be interested in Apple or Android or this or that, but other people may be. We'll keep trying to get better at pleasing as much of the community as possible, but sadly, pleasing everyone all the time remains an impossible goal...!

For now, here's the article from a couple of days ago about the future of Windows Live SkyDrive. Hope you enjoy!
http://www.neowin.net/news/mic...ive-and-other-cloud-systems

chago12 said,
will the ghost of steve jobs tell me what not to watch too?

they'll probably block out porn as they do in the app store

I think letting ANY of these folks into the television market would introduce unwanted fragmentation.

We've experienced some sort of compatability with television sets for the last 60 years. Allowing different software providers to customize the experience will definitely baffle the consumer, much as the PC still does today.

When I have to choose my TV based on preinstallled software to ensure compatability with my provider, I'm done.

dotf said,
I think letting ANY of these folks into the television market would introduce unwanted fragmentation.

We've experienced some sort of compatability with television sets for the last 60 years. Allowing different software providers to customize the experience will definitely baffle the consumer, much as the PC still does today.

When I have to choose my TV based on preinstallled software to ensure compatability with my provider, I'm done.


Why would a TVs software effect what input it can display, the TV channels usually come form an internal or external box that is just decoding the channels and outputting the picture and sound to the TV. At least I haven't heard anything about Samsungs "Smart" TVs being incompatible with certain providers...

Leonick said,
...

And when Apple get involved they will dump hdmi in favor of displayport ...

Just use your imagination and imagine how the software providers will try to differentiate their chosen manufacturer's brand and it becomes easy to see.

Yeah sorry, I'm not interested in buying a TV that gets 2-3 years of OS updates and then is dead in the water. A separate box maybe, but not built in to the TV.

Scoop a cat turd from the litter box, stick an Apple label on it and call it iTurd and watch people line up to buy it.

I don't see much of this standing a chance agains whats about to be unleashed in December 6. Here we have Apple and Google trying to stay relevant in a market that is about to be swoop off its feet by Xbox, and in the future by Kinect enable TV's. I say Siri shmiry to that. The xbox its already the most successful product that connects to the TV now days. It constantly gets whole upgrades and with Comcast and Fios on its side, I think Apple and Google coming a little too late to the TV party.

Wow these neowin editorials just keep getting worse and worse. Feels like I'm reading engadget/gizmodo now.

"Apple is the future of PC's"
"Apple is the future of gaming"
"Apple is the future of TV"


What's next? "Apple is the future of automobiles"?

mattbonner said,
Wow these neowin editorials just keep getting worse and worse. Feels like I'm reading engadget/gizmodo now.

"Apple is the future of PC's"
"Apple is the future of gaming"
"Apple is the future of TV"


What's next? "Apple is the future of automobiles"?

Apple is the future of the future. ;-)

mattbonner said,
Wow these neowin editorials just keep getting worse and worse. Feels like I'm reading engadget/gizmodo now.

"Apple is the future of PC's"
"Apple is the future of gaming"
"Apple is the future of TV"


What's next? "Apple is the future of automobiles"?

Perhaps - although BMW owns the trademark for iDrive, sadly.

Maybe Apple is the future of vacuum cleaners... introducing the iSuck.

Clearly people seem to like playing sucky- old fashioned games.. case in point - iOS and Wii. When I first saw the Wii I couldn't understand why anyone could handle that bad of graphics. On that note, maybe an Apple TV with a SDK for millions of developers to go nuts with IS the future of gaming..

Mitch Robertson said,
Clearly people seem to like playing sucky- old fashioned games.. case in point - iOS and Wii. When I first saw the Wii I couldn't understand why anyone could handle that bad of graphics. On that note, maybe an Apple TV with a SDK for millions of developers to go nuts with IS the future of gaming..

I might give you an explanation about the Wii: vast majority of people like the idea to play a simple, interactive game and the Wii delivered it.
Note that the only games I have played were military Sims like F22, TAW and Falcon 4 which means that I personally like ultra-detailed graphics and controls but again the majority of people do not care to read the 300 pages manual.

Personally I cannot stand the consoles like the Sony, the Wii or the Xbox: they are locked down devices with all kind of limitations both as hardware and usability (region limited games etc.) but they seem to be popular so these new 'All included" TV sets will become popular too; I will stick with my XXXXX TV set connected to a Media Center TV and I will enjoy replacing graphic cards, HDs etc. etc. as I wish.

Mitch Robertson said,
Clearly people seem to like playing sucky- old fashioned games.. case in point - iOS and Wii. When I first saw the Wii I couldn't understand why anyone could handle that bad of graphics. On that note, maybe an Apple TV with a SDK for millions of developers to go nuts with IS the future of gaming..

I might give you an explanation about the Wii: vast majority of people like the idea to play a simple, interactive game and the Wii delivered it.
Note that the only games I have played were military Sims like F22, TAW and Falcon 4 which means that I personally like ultra-detailed graphics and controls but again the majority of people do not care to read the 300 pages manual.

Personally I cannot stand the consoles like the Sony, the Wii or the Xbox: they are locked down devices with all kind of limitations both as hardware and usability (region limited games etc.) but they seem to be popular so these new 'All included" TV sets will become popular too; I will stick with my XXXXX TV set connected to a Media Center TV and I will enjoy replacing graphic cards, HDs etc. etc. as I wish.

Psh, the only thing we can be sure of is that an Apple-designed TV would have maybe two or three non-standard ports on the back. No HDMI, no DVI, no component--as Jobs said, people don't want to plug things into a TV. That whole console video gaming thing is just a fad; it'll die any day now.

Though it would be the first Apple product on the market that wouldn't hurl roadblocks in the path of blu-ray playback.

Yes yes, I know, you can watch blu-ray on a Mac. Still ripping/playing the files manually there?

/admittedly, trending a TV that only had thunderbolt ports on the back could lead to a very interesting future of video game consoles that could plug directly into a PC

Joshie said,
Psh, the only thing we can be sure of is that an Apple-designed TV would have maybe two or three non-standard ports on the back. No HDMI, no DVI, no component--as Jobs said, people don't want to plug things into a TV. That whole console video gaming thing is just a fad; it'll die any day now.

Though it would be the first Apple product on the market that wouldn't hurl roadblocks in the path of blu-ray playback.

Yes yes, I know, you can watch blu-ray on a Mac. Still ripping/playing the files manually there?

/admittedly, trending a TV that only had thunderbolt ports on the back could lead to a very interesting future of video game consoles that could plug directly into a PC


Judging by the current Apple TV which has HDMI (no non-standard ports actually) and the Mac Mini which also has HDMI I think it'd be a pretty safe bet that if Apple did do a TV it would have several HDMI ports as well as the rest you usually find on a TV and most likely some Thunderbolt too.

As for DVI, is that a standard for a TV? Most larger TVs seem to have a VGA port now but no DVI for some reason...

Leonick said,

Judging by the current Apple TV which has HDMI (no non-standard ports actually) and the Mac Mini which also has HDMI I think it'd be a pretty safe bet that if Apple did do a TV it would have several HDMI ports as well as the rest you usually find on a TV and most likely some Thunderbolt too.

As for DVI, is that a standard for a TV? Most larger TVs seem to have a VGA port now but no DVI for some reason...

So it looks like a ton of Samsung HDTVs have DVI ports in back, but after peeking behind a friend's LG, it's just VGA. I don't have any idea how consistent this is, so I'll leave it up to people who work with TVs.

FWIW, though, it makes total, 100% perfect sense why an Apple box (Mac Mini, Apple TV, etc) would have an HDMI port: it needs to connect to an existing display. Otherwise it sort of wouldn't sell. At all. Ever. Because there'd be nothing for them to plug into.

But an Apple television doesn't have the same limitation. It IS the display. Nothing NEEDS to plug into it aside from the TV signal. With all of the tech built-in, and Jobs' infamous "people hate connecting things to a TV" line, it genuinely wouldn't surprise me if they threw a bunch of never-before-seen-on-TVs ports on there and did a way with a ton of common-place ports.

Don't know about anyone else but a TV certainly isn't a yearly purchase for me. I buy a TV to last me 2 - 3 years maybe even longer! (Bought a 50" Samsung Plasma at the start of this year, very happy with it!). I am a big fan of Apple and their products but I dont think I'd be rushing out to buy this!

If they can make a TV that has a great picture (out of the box AND great options to adjust it so its color correct), low input lag, good uniformity and great remote then I'm all for it. Most TV manufacturers seem keen to simply cram more crap on top while the quality of the actual display part goes down. Otherwise my next TV will be a Panasonic plasma...

everyone chill out

It will be an interesting year for the TV market next year, the Satellite and Cable companies are the ones that need to watch out...

Apple could fall on the price, imagine a 42"+ TV from them.. it would be like a bazillion dollars.

Apple TV isn't that great and is only worth having if you jailbreak it and install additional software... but then again, the others aren't doing anything special in the software side of things either.

My internet TV is already capable of doing everything i could possibly want..

artibatirae said,
"The future of TV might just be Apple-shaped"

So basically, 99% of all TV shows will just be random farting?


Best new show will be titled " Ass". And that's all it will be.

Other possible titles for this Editorial:

"The future of TV might just be Microsoft-shaped" or
"The future of TV might just be Google-shaped" or
"The future of TV might just be Samsung-shaped"
when in reality
"The future of TV might just be shaped by anyone"

So, err, why Apple?

Neobond said,
Erm maybe because they announced that they will be doing this in 2012?

Really? Can I see a link to this announcement by Apple?

Incredible that I get accused of being an Apple fan boy... I don't own a single Apple product.

I've got a HP Pavilion Elite desktop, a HP Pavilion notebook, Sony Vaio TT notebook HP TouchSmart media PC (all running Windows 7); a HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server; an Xbox 360; and two Windows Phones (a Samsung Omnia 7 and HTC 7 Mozart).

But sure, owning all that Microsoft stuff and no Apple stuff whatsoever totally makes me want to marry Apple.

gcaw said,
Incredible that I get accused of being an Apple fan boy... I don't own a single Apple product.

I've got a HP Pavilion Elite desktop, a HP Pavilion notebook, Sony Vaio TT notebook HP TouchSmart media PC (all running Windows 7); a HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server; an Xbox 360; and two Windows Phones (a Samsung Omnia 7 and HTC 7 Mozart).

But sure, owning all that Microsoft stuff and no Apple stuff whatsoever totally makes me want to marry Apple.

Say anything. ANYTHING that casts Apple in a good light, and you're a fanboy. That's the way it works here. There is no single Apple article on this site without "fanboy" or "iSheep" littered in the comments.

NeoTrunks said,

Say anything. ANYTHING that casts Apple in a good light, and you're a fanboy. That's the way it works here. There is no single Apple article on this site without "fanboy" or "iSheep" littered in the comments.


Indeed. Has to be noted the same is true for Google or well Android related articles too though, although the word fanboy (in a negative way) (or iSheep) seem to be thrown a lot quicker when it comes to Apple related articles.
Not that this is in anyway unique to this site...

gcaw said,
Incredible that I get accused of being an Apple fan boy... I don't own a single Apple product.

I've got a HP Pavilion Elite desktop, a HP Pavilion notebook, Sony Vaio TT notebook HP TouchSmart media PC (all running Windows 7); a HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server; an Xbox 360; and two Windows Phones (a Samsung Omnia 7 and HTC 7 Mozart).

But sure, owning all that Microsoft stuff and no Apple stuff whatsoever totally makes me want to marry Apple.


When you are replying in a editoral you wrote, defending yourself, that shows you simply have a love for Apple, irrelevent of the products you own.

htcz said,

When you are replying in a editoral you wrote, defending yourself, that shows you simply have a love for Apple, irrelevent of the products you own.

I'm... completely lost. You're saying that I love Apple so much that I can't bring myself to buy a single one of their products?

NeoTrunks said,

Say anything. ANYTHING that casts Apple in a good light, and you're a fanboy. That's the way it works here. There is no single Apple article on this site without "fanboy" or "iSheep" littered in the comments.

Same with wp7 articles with iOS/android users, or just every article on pretty much every website!

They won't have a thing on Samsung in quality of TV products specially if they use sharp/sony manufactured panels. Add in android/google tv and things in single tv without separate box and will be just awesome.

To add to it, it'll be too bad they'll be jumping in the LCD market just as AMOLED will be starting in size and quantity. Either way Apple will be stupid trying to get involved in this market.

Digitalx said,
They won't have a thing on Samsung in quality of TV products specially if they use sharp/sony manufactured panels. Add in android/google tv and things in single tv without separate box and will be just awesome.

To add to it, it'll be too bad they'll be jumping in the LCD market just as AMOLED will be starting in size and quantity. Either way Apple will be stupid trying to get involved in this market.

I'm not great on my display knowledge, but I can't see Apple releasing a TV with a sub-par display. One of their key points in their marketing is the display quality, so if it couldn't stack up on the shelf next to a Samsung TV I'm not sure they would do it.

Digitalx said,
They won't have a thing on Samsung in quality of TV products specially if they use sharp/sony manufactured panels. Add in android/google tv and things in single tv without separate box and will be just awesome.

To add to it, it'll be too bad they'll be jumping in the LCD market just as AMOLED will be starting in size and quantity. Either way Apple will be stupid trying to get involved in this market.

If it's anything like the iMac/Thunderbolt display quality, we're looking at the best Television on the market hands down.

Spirit Dave said,

If it's anything like the iMac/Thunderbolt display quality, we're looking at the best Television on the market hands down.


With a 12ms response time, you have to be kidding me. My 32in Samsung 2009 LED TV which is also my computer monitor has a 5ms response time. Sure the Apple display has a higher resolution, but it would only look good on still images.

jesseinsf said,

With a 12ms response time, you have to be kidding me. My 32in Samsung 2009 LED TV which is also my computer monitor has a 5ms response time. Sure the Apple display has a higher resolution, but it would only look good on still images.

Well a 2560 x 1440 tv would suck, content would just stretch. 1920 x 1080 it must be.

jesseinsf said,

With a 12ms response time, you have to be kidding me. My 32in Samsung 2009 LED TV which is also my computer monitor has a 5ms response time. Sure the Apple display has a higher resolution, but it would only look good on still images.

I didn't mean they'd use the same bloody display! lol. I meant as a judgement of quality. Silly

SuperKid said,
They really making a TV? whaaat? It looks ugly anyway.

That's an iMac with the stand Photoshopped out. I doubt the real one, if it exists, will look like that.

Mike Brown said,
Would probably look more like the Thunderbolt display.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.eng...underboltdispalypfprint.jpg

That looks a lot better for a TV!

gcaw said,
Indeed, that's just a dodgy Photoshop that I threw together for the article.

Oh! That explains it then

It just the bulky space at the bottom (well bulky for a TV, for a desktop PC it looks perfectly fine) didn't look too appealing. It certainly works for a Desktop PC but i just can't handle large TV's with a bulky bottom, I like where the screen takes up 99% of the space and it just has a sleek slim edge around it

This is still annoying me. So because Apple haven't done anything while other companies have started to make forays into the market, the future is Apple shaped?

Nonsensical.

Wakers said,
This is still annoying me. So because Apple haven't done anything while other companies have started to make forays into the market, the future is Apple shaped?
Towards the end of the article it says about how Apple has hinted several times that it's intending to go into the TV market. They also already have a TV-based product out, so I'm not sure how they "haven't done anything".

Oh, Wakers. You poor foolish child. You'd probably have understood things better if you'd read the article properly. Instead you somehow ‘read' the article, then posted a comment here in disgust, AND submitted a complaint about the article being fanboy "rubbish" to the editors (!), ALL in under two minutes. Next time, take a couple of minutes more to read, and THEN try to form an opinion around what you've read. Pre-judging the article based on its title and then spouting off some angry nonsense just makes you look silly. Like a fanboy, in fact.

Anyway, let me try to explain it another way.

Microsoft's efforts here are fairly half-hearted: 'if you have an Xbox, here's some TV stuff for you'. Not exactly changing the face of TV; the majority of consumers aren't going to rush out and buy an Xbox because they can now watch a limited selection of TV content from a narrow range of providers on it.

Google TV has tried and failed so far; it might work with Samsung, but Sony's efforts on that front aren't going well (in fact, they're now talking about developing their own "new kind of TV" platform in the face of poor Google TV sales), and Logitech lost big bucks on it.

Apple has a history of entering markets - music player (iPod), mobile phone (iPhone), tablet (iPad) etc - that aren't new, that have existed for some time, but repackaging them in a new and compelling way, a way that appeals to consumers. The first iMacs showed customers that home computers could be stylish, not just 'beige boxes', and PC manufacturers subsequently started to be bolder with their designs; the MacBook Air brought ultralight, ultraportable computing to a broader audience, and now the PC notebook market follows with Ultrabooks, just as other Apple products shook things up, and prompted improvements across rival products.

No, Apple didn't make the first phone with a touchscreen, or the first portable music player, or the first tablet, but they did succeed in shaking up each of those sectors with a new approach that appealed to the consumer. Apple has proved time and again in numerous areas of technology that they can create something with great consumer appeal, and make an indecent amount of money from it. And recent tech history has also shown that - like it or not - where Apple leads, other companies often follow.

And that's how Apple shapes markets, and why it's the best placed among the tech giants to shape the future of the TV market, which is ripe for the kind of disruption that it's brought to other sectors.

You don't have to be a fanboy to understand that Apple is a disruptor, and that the competition it brings helps define markets and products. You just need to have a couple of brain cells to rub together. Credit where it's due, and all that; not just sticking one's head in the sand, and pretending that in the beginning there was Microsoft, and Microsoft created everything and saw that it was good. In actual fact, a lot of what Microsoft created was mediocre, and only got much, much better because of the competition around it.

Apple has tried TV and failed . Yeah Jobs called it a hobby ,Translation :we have no idea how to get it right. Few lines in his biography doesn't mean Apple's going to totally rule TV. The problem is the content providers and Siri is not the solution.
You call Microsoft's attempt at TV half hearted yet you give Apple a pass speculating they will some figure it out despite their faliure.

Microsoft is preparing to launch Live TV across 20 countries with 40+ providers this fall with full kinect integration how is that half hearted ? But I'm not biased ,I'll believe it when I see it. The Same applies for google

gcaw said,
Oh, Wakers. You poor foolish child. You'd probably have understood things better if you'd read the article properly. Instead you somehow ‘read' the article, then posted a comment here in disgust, AND submitted a complaint about the article being fanboy "rubbish" to the editors (!), ALL in under two minutes. Next time, take a couple of minutes more to read, and THEN try to form an opinion around what you've read. Pre-judging the article based on its title and then spouting off some angry nonsen

"You're reading it wrong."

I haven't misread anything. Your attitude is lousy!

I was encouraged previously to make the gist of my negative comments in a report, so that's what I've done.

Of course, then the writer decides that criticism isn't OK and they can insult the commenter!

Rubbish. It's a poor article, with a nonsensical conclusion.

Wakers said,
I haven't misread anything. Your attitude is lousy!

I was encouraged previously to make the gist of my negative comments in a report, so that's what I've done.

Of course, then the writer decides that criticism isn't OK and they can insult the commenter!

Rubbish. It's a poor article, with a nonsensical conclusion.

And an unprofessional response. (Not yours Wakers...)

Denis W said,

http://m.gizmodo.com/5687692/y...-journalism-and-i-read-derp
My own opinion of the comments above is best summed up by this:

Wow. Just wow. So now I'm accused of calling the article unprofessional when I was clearly talking about the personal attack?

Attacking a commenter weather you agree with them or not is unprofessional, not only that but it's just a demonstration of being an *******.

I commented on the article, I get a personal attack back. I made a report about the number of Apple articles here (not even ones that have a point to them, like this one - Other companies announce TV products, Apple have hinted so the future is Apple!) and apparently that's cause for personal attacks.

This place has gone totally down the pan in the last year or so.

If you don't want people to use the report feature, then you can't complain when you get it in the comments section instead.

You guys really need to assess the attitude you have towards your readership. This is the second time I have been attacked personally by a writer on here for raising a valid point.

Wakers said,

You guys really need to assess the attitude you have towards your readership. This is the second time I have been attacked personally by a writer on here for raising a valid point.

The journalism maybe unprofessional, but that doesn't mean the journalists can't be professional in how they condone themselves. Regardless of the validity of your point, the writer should've responded more appropriately.

Wakers said,

Wow. Just wow. So now I'm accused of calling the article unprofessional when I was clearly talking about the personal attack?

Attacking a commenter weather you agree with them or not is unprofessional, not only that but it's just a demonstration of being an *******.

I commented on the article, I get a personal attack back. I made a report about the number of Apple articles here (not even ones that have a point to them, like this one - Other companies announce TV products, Apple have hinted so the future is Apple!) and apparently that's cause for personal attacks.

This place has gone totally down the pan in the last year or so.

If you don't want people to use the report feature, then you can't complain when you get it in the comments section instead.

You guys really need to assess the attitude you have towards your readership. This is the second time I have been attacked personally by a writer on here for raising a valid point.

Let's just be clear on a couple of things here. In the space of 90 seconds after the article was posted, you apparently read through 890 words, absorbed the meaning, weighed the pros and cons of the argument laid out; then made a comment here based upon your careful judgement; then made a complaint to the editors. In 90 seconds.

No. You can't possibly have read it all properly in that time, and had time to then make two comments against it. And since you obviously didn't read it properly, then your comments clearly weren't focused on the substance of the article; you made an assessment based on this being a 'pro-Apple' article (probably from the title alone), and then decided to complain about it. The facts and arguments as they were laid out were immaterial; you simply decided that you would complain because the article clearly represented an opinion that you disagreed with. Your initial complaints weren't about any substantive flaws in the article or factual errors; they were complaints about this being a 'fanboy' article.

I'm happy to have a discussion and debate where people make interesting and detailed points that disagree with mine, and point out flaws in my reasoning, or errors in the facts that I've quoted. But if you're not going to afford me the courtesy of even considering my viewpoint before you tell me it's wrong, then I see no reason to afford you any courtesy in my response to your complaint.

If you think it's a rubbish article with a rubbish conclusion, then I respect your opinion. But you initially formed that opinion without really reading the article at all, and that's evident in the amount of time that you took to 'read' it - which can't have been more than 50 seconds to allow you the time to then make two seperate complaints about it (one here, and one through the editorial complaint facility).

Complaining that the article was written by a fanboy isn't really an intelligent contribution to the discussion. The writers, believe it or not, are humans, and don't deserve to be insulted just for proposing an opinion that you decide to hate before you've even fully understood it. Try talking the way you do on here to people you've just met in a bar - insulting them and shouting down their opinions before you've even listened to them properly - and see how far you get with your attitude before you get the kind of patronising response that I threw back at you.

So, let's all shake hands, drink beer, and be nice to each other now, huh? We're all here to talk tech, to love tech and to enjoy tech as a community. "Your platform sucks, mine FTW" is a very petty way of looking at things, when we're all here to enjoy the same stuff. So, let's enjoy.

gcaw said,
Oh, Wakers. You poor foolish child. You'd probably have understood things better if you'd read the article properly. Instead you somehow ‘read' the article, then posted a comment here in disgust, AND submitted a complaint about the article being fanboy "rubbish" to the editors (!), ALL in under two minutes. Next time, take a couple of minutes more to read, and THEN try to form an opinion around what you've read. Pre-judging the article based on its title and then spouting off some angry nonsense just makes you look silly. Like a fanboy, in fact.

Anyway, let me try to explain it another way.

Microsoft's efforts here are fairly half-hearted: 'if you have an Xbox, here's some TV stuff for you'. Not exactly changing the face of TV; the majority of consumers aren't going to rush out and buy an Xbox because they can now watch a limited selection of TV content from a narrow range of providers on it.

Google TV has tried and failed so far; it might work with Samsung, but Sony's efforts on that front aren't going well (in fact, they're now talking about developing their own "new kind of TV" platform in the face of poor Google TV sales), and Logitech lost big bucks on it.

Apple has a history of entering markets - music player (iPod), mobile phone (iPhone), tablet (iPad) etc - that aren't new, that have existed for some time, but repackaging them in a new and compelling way, a way that appeals to consumers. The first iMacs showed customers that home computers could be stylish, not just 'beige boxes', and PC manufacturers subsequently started to be bolder with their designs; the MacBook Air brought ultralight, ultraportable computing to a broader audience, and now the PC notebook market follows with Ultrabooks, just as other Apple products shook things up, and prompted improvements across rival products.

No, Apple didn't make the first phone with a touchscreen, or the first portable music player, or the first tablet, but they did succeed in shaking up each of those sectors with a new approach that appealed to the consumer. Apple has proved time and again in numerous areas of technology that they can create something with great consumer appeal, and make an indecent amount of money from it. And recent tech history has also shown that - like it or not - where Apple leads, other companies often follow.

And that's how Apple shapes markets, and why it's the best placed among the tech giants to shape the future of the TV market, which is ripe for the kind of disruption that it's brought to other sectors.

You don't have to be a fanboy to understand that Apple is a disruptor, and that the competition it brings helps define markets and products. You just need to have a couple of brain cells to rub together. Credit where it's due, and all that; not just sticking one's head in the sand, and pretending that in the beginning there was Microsoft, and Microsoft created everything and saw that it was good. In actual fact, a lot of what Microsoft created was mediocre, and only got much, much better because of the competition around it.

Brilliant. Thank you.

Wakers said,
Ugh. I know it's an editorial but.. good grief.

That's about all I can say while still being decent.

While I agree, I have to say that it's nowhere near the quality of editorial I've grown accustomed to... It's rather sad that the bar is that low honestly.