"but Jobs told his biographer Walter Isaacson that *he* had "cracked" TVs"
He? Surely that's a typo for we - ah no, I forgot, St Steve did it all.
bit like someone else we know, ahem new
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16342315
One of Steve Jobs' final ambitions was to revolutionise television. And if supply-chain moles are telling the truth, we'll get to see what exactly the great man had in mind in a few months, when Apple's new iTVs start rolling off the production line. The new Apple TVs - reportedly full sets rather than just set-top boxes - …
"This TV is just gonna have a single RF IN socket, isn't it. Not to worry, cos iTV2 will have colour composite input as well. Expect HDMI on the iTV4s."
Blimey, what world do you live in? This will have a single Apple(TM) Media Socket(TM), adapters are available for SCART, HDMI, VGA and S-Video. Prices are £50 each and are not included in the iTV product.
On a side note, I wonder if Apple will have any trademark issues with the ITV channel in the UK.
I had to "return a few to the workshop for reapir" when the picture became faulty - sometime shortly after the money collector noticed the box had been fiddled with.
Never found out what was wrong with the sets - all perfectly alright in the workshop.
Maybe had something to do with the pin that was sometimes spotted disecting the antenna cable - but who would do such a thing?
I'm not sure that name will pass unnoticed in the UK, given that ITV has been producing TV programming for over half a century. It's not like the name is used in an entirely different industry is it?
Perhaps Apple imagine that using a lower case 'i' gives them special powers... in which case if that's all it takes, who's up for releasing IPOds, IPAds and IPhOnEs?
@Nick Gisburne; "I'm not sure [the "iTV" name] will pass unnoticed in the UK"
I doubt Apple themselves were planning on using that name anyway.
"iTV" was the original planned name for "Apple TV" a few years back, and it was changed before launch for that very reason.
Suspect that Digitimes was using it in the same way that some people continued to refer to the original PlayStation as "PSX" after its pre-launch name.
Er, no. Apple did. It was a very rare example of an Apple product announced a significant time before it was actually released. Steve Jobs got up on stage (at the annual iPod announcement, I think) talked about it, and said that it was called iTV for now, but that might change. When the product was released six or so months later, it had been changed to Apple TV, probably because ITV was such a well established trademark in the UK.
TV sets are low margin these days aren't they? I don't see how that's a market that Apple can conquer.
(Then again, would have said the same thing about mobile phones back in the day, so....)
However, the rumours are still very vague. Will they be set top boxes? Is it just AppleTV3 and you use your own tv. Or will it be built in to iMacs? For a product that's only half a year away, seems like there's still a lot of guesswork going on.
Apple may not concern itself with other people selling at low margins, but you only have to look at Panasonic's recent profit warning to know that selling volume at high margins is very difficult in TV these days.All of the primary Japanese manufacturers have recently spun off their small screen divisions into a likely unprofitable company to avoid booking the losses. Philips have just sold their TV division to the Chinese for pennies and Panasonic lost hundreds of millions chasing the business. No one is making profit on TV panels these days, believe me I speak with some authority on this subject.
Apple might revolutionise the interface, but 90% of the population don't want a revolution in TV because they are passive consumers and remember that the majority of the population doesn't want, or can't afford, an iPhone it just seems like it in our field of view. Apple TV 1&2 didn't revolutionise anything that wasn't already being done, the only advantage it has is iTunes content.
In addition TV is, unlike phones and computers, different everywhere in the world. The transmission standards vary from country to country, the customers ability to pay varies, the dominance of Pay TV varies and even the regulatory/legal requirements. Sony has been doing revolutionary things for years and yet has numerous different platforms worldwide. In particular if you understand the US market then you definitely don't understand the rest of the world because the US is a microcosm in respect of the business of TV.
Apple doesn't need to sell TVs in the same volume as Panasonic, Philips, LG or Samsung to be successful. They only need to sell enough to convince the mainstream media that all the "smart" people have an Apple TV. Look at the iPhone - it was a "huge success" with only 1% of the cell phone market. That was enough to convince people that they had to have what would have been a niche product if any other company had produced it.
This post has been deleted by its author
All those controls for audio, color, brightness, alignment, etc. were behind tiny little holes in the back panel. So I wouldn't call those 'simple'.
Also, in the US at least, there were two knobs for VHF (channels 2-12, of which every other one could be used) and UHF (13-80 or something). The UHF one only worked when the VHF knob was set to the non-channel that designated UHF. And you had to ACTUALLY GET UP OFF THE COUCH to change the channel!! Oh the humanity!
"All those controls for audio, color, brightness, alignment, etc. were behind tiny little holes in the back panel. So I wouldn't call those 'simple'."
I haven't seen any TVs that had these controls on the backpanel, but maybe European TV sets were different. The only control that was found on the back was VSYNC on older sets that required manual fiddling with it.
"Also, in the US at least, there were two knobs for VHF (channels 2-12, of which every other one could be used) and UHF (13-80 or something). The UHF one only worked when the VHF knob was set to the non-channel that designated UHF."
In Europe, such controls were common on smaller black & white portables and on very early living room TV sets, but the latter got adjustable channel selectors quickly.
"And you had to ACTUALLY GET UP OFF THE COUCH to change the channel!! Oh the humanity!"
Reminds me on my 1969 Philips Goya 110SL color TV set which not only had standby (to keep the tubes preheated so that the startup was quick) but also a remote control (a box with 4 channel selectors and volume, connected to the TV set via a 10m finger-thick cable).
Good old times;-)
This post has been deleted by its author
PAL: because of lack of bandwidth the colours can't fully saturate. Hence Pink-Amber-Lilac
(Yellow was a subtractive term)
NTSC: the hue signal was transmitted so far from the carrier that it was Never Twice Same Colour
The French and Russians used SECAM: System Entirely Contrary (to the) American Method
Who uses the UI on a TV?
The interface is the set top box like a Tivo or a cable tuner.
On the other hand, Apple's current stuff in terms of both remotes and onscreen menus are nothing to brag about. Both are "simplified" to the point of being crippled. Real remotes might be ugly because they actually allow you do something and expose features that Apple just tries to ignore.
Then there's a whole world of universal remote hurt that your post doesn't even address. That's a whole industry spanning mess that Apple has no ability to influence.
The Logitech Harmony universal remote is a dream. Controls my TV, Satellite box, DVD, DVR, VCR and AV. Uses configured 'actions' so when I want to watch a DVD it turns off the satellite box, DVR, VCR, then turns on the DVD, TV, switches the input on the TV from satellite to DVD, turns on the stereo and switches it's input to the TV's optical out channel and begins playing the movie.
Totally awesome!
"simplest user interface you could imagine"
I call it... THE TELEVISION REMOTE. Apple has once again created a new piece of magical technology that NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER BEFORE.
Or perhaps they will copy Logitech again with the Harmony app. Use your iPad to change the channels. Must spend on the most expensive version of the iPad then pay $1.99 for the app.
Digital Terrestrial has
3 common flavours of DVB-T, though if your set does MHEG5, MHP, DVB-T2, AAC, MPEG4, VHF and UHF, it will work in most DVB areas.
There are then 4 incompatible non-DVB DTT standards.
Will it have Component for USA, SCART for Europe, Analogue RF (several kinds of SECAM, PAL, NTSC etc) for countries not using DTT yet, or with Analogue Cable?
People used to buying "grey" imports will import the North American version and find it works almost nowhere else in the world on Digital.
Even HD is country specific resolutions and frame rates, even on HDMI. Or will Apple pretend 25i and 50p don't exist. Will it support 24p and 48p for better North American disc playback of stuff transferred from Cinema?
Or will it be like the original iPhone, almost only a GUI and packaging exercise with standard electronics?
If they do release a "real" TV, any one buying it is wasting money, as it will be more expensive and more restrictive than a similar quality non-Apple TV.
"I love how this site pretends that there are places outside the USA! I guess it's a running gag or something."
You think that's something, over at tivocommunity they pretend there's some place called a "youkay" where they had different S1s and got the next model after the Premiere before we did.