gdgt

I think Apple's already indirectly in the TV business -- albeit with a small screen size -- with the iMac. It's a gorgeous device that also happens to offer the functionality of most of your set top boxes. Wouldn't a 50" iMac look good as the centerpiece of your home theater?

I have a new Sony Bravia LED TV with integrated internet features. Gorgeous TV but the UI is SLOW as hell!
I keep trying to use the built in features, but my set top boxes (PS3, 360 and Apple TV) win out every time.
IMHO TV's should be dumb display devices. We'll update every 5 years or more... but get new boxes as needed.

No. They should stick with what they're good at, making eye popping evolutionary marvels at a low cost to manufacture, but with a high profit range. TVs swing back to their old business of PCs, with high cost range. They should stick with their new image of smart investments.

I honestly see streaming from a wireless device to be much more their route. Once the iPad goes under another revision or two, pump in some wireless HDMI, or Intel's standard and pump content to the TV. The iPad could show the guide/queue/library playing as the UI, so not your typical on screen remote. Also they could pump in social media interaction.

I know they're doing their dumb ping thing but they could do some neat stuff with Facebook/Twitter. Turn the new episode of a highly popular show into an online event. Everyone on Facebook on Thursday nights are networking while watching. Since the iPad would be there in your hands engaging you, they could pump their interactive ads on it while hopefully negating ads from the big screen.

Today's generation is completely ADHD while watching video anyways. Get to them on the screen they're actively using. Everyone blocks out ads on tv. While watching hulu I flip to the other desktop to check Reader while the 30 sec ad jumps in. Plus Apple taking ads away from the big screen sounds like the sort of thing they would trumpet as them changing the industry and making a better world for consumers.

All this said, I'm not an Apple fan, and do not have a tablet. I've had a PC hooked to my tv since 2006 and computing from my recliner seems normal to me. So I'm not one that gets the need for a TV UI like Boxee or AppleTV, etc. I also dont get the need for a tablet when a PC does so much more at once. I understand I'm not everyone however, and I plan to get an Android tablet this year to make apps for it though.

I wonder if it would be a case of sure we have this amazing multi touch TV with great apps and internet connection but as its an apple device you can only watch what we tell you. weirdben.blogspot.com

Well, $999 for an Apple Cinema Display with empty insides is kind of crazy. With all that empty space inside, add a simple cable box connector and you've got a great dual mode monitor. Can you imagine having TV play in an OS X window while you blog on another? You'd say "What took them so long?"

I think the only reason I would want Apple to sell their own brand of TV is if it was good for doing all of the regular TV stuff (Watching movies, watching TV, etc.) as well as reading text on.

I'd love to play games like Eve Online or surf the web on my television, but the text is always so blurry (even on high-end TVs) because they're not optimized for it. I might hook a Mac Mini to a TV to watch my movies with it, but I'm going to immediately remove it the instant I need to do anything involving text.

Integrated Apple TV might be nice, but I tend to dislike combo-devices because inevitably, one of the features fails first and you end up having to replace the whole thing.

Apple is already in the TV business. Their TVs just come with much smaller display sizes: 3.5" and 10", and are called iPhones and iPads. Steve Jobs said as much when he originally pitched the iPad during its first press event.

Tech convergence forces are pushing all our personal processing power into mobile devices. Eventually, our phones will be "us", and will be the only processor we're carrying around any longer, and any other devices will act as dumb peripherals. Witness: Motorola Atrix. We're already at the point where, as John Carmack has mentioned, our phones (iphone4) are half a generation behind the game consoles in power. Under Moore's law, how much longer will having a desktop make sense? They're already going extinct, as evidenced by sales delta figures. How long until full-size laptops go the same way?

What this means with regards to Apple is that we'll be piping a portion of our TV service through our phones, then sending that video signal to whatever peripherals are in the area.

Should Apple get into the TV business? That's not a very good question. It's just another display for our content devices.

I challenge someone to make me a fan of a macbook. I am a huge tech junkie, and have had a computer hooked to a tv sine the days of using an S-video cable. That said, I like to find the best deal on technology. I am too broke to ever purchase a macbook, especially since the hardware and software aren't proven to me. I can run OS X on a Dell netbook out of the box for hundreds, if not over $1000 less. For the cost of some of these macbooks (I prefer the most lightweight laptop possible, thus my netbook purchase, and Dell 700m purchase before that), I could get a new netbook every other year. I just don't see the reason to pay so much extra for the Apple logo. So, I know you've got one laying around you can let me borrow. I challenge you Mac lovers to make me love it, because I just don't see what the big deal is with paying for the brand name.

I agree that Apple should not go into TV business. However I do believe that they can do into the stereo business. Regardless of what you think of Bose or Apple products you have to agree that they make a lot of money selling "high quality" products at high prices. I don't personally own any Bose products so I cannot speak of their quality, reliability, etc.

Now maybe they don't want to step on Bose's profits, because they get a cut of the speakerdocks' profits but I think that Apple is so hot right now that if they released something similar to Jawbone's jambox with Airplay instead of bluetooth it would be a huge hit. I think they can then move to surround sound, sound bars, and alarm clocks and really sell people on multi room, piecemeal speaker systems. I don't know much about Sonos, but apparently they are making money charging people up the @$$ for features similar to Airplay.

There are definitely people interested in paying a lot of money for "high quality audio" and Bose has shown that superior marketing inspires people to buy high priced stereos. Apple can market their products better than their competitors so I think it makes a lot of sense given their current stance in the home as a music player. The fact that they sell lots of iPhones, iPod Touches and Macs will help tremendously. People love it when a new product works with their existing stuff, even if they never thought about needing/using the new product. Capitalizing on excitement is right up Apple alley.

I think they would make something beautiful, which would be a plus. As you mentioned, the TV kind of functions better WITH a set-top box, and that's kind of how I see it as well.

I also think it doesn't fit with Apple's general style of leaving out certain features only to introduce them in later models. So it would be interesting to see how they dealt with that sticky wicket.

Plus, I don't know if I'm ready to spend $4000 on a 42 inch TV right now.

When Apple do finally make a TV, they will reinvent Television.

I frankly believe that the days of serial timed programming are numbered. When you turn a TV on you should see a custom (or genius) selection of programmes that have recently become available for you to pick. This will rely heavily on a good data connection.

Apple will make a TV when the time is right. When they do make one. It will need to be able to fully replace Sky or Cable TV. It will however require a rollout with one of the broadband internet providers (for each country) to give a reliable service.

I agree. Apple will buy screens from a screen manufacturer. Then again, they've never owned fabrication facilities. Even the Apple I and Apple II were assembled by a third party. Why reinvent the wheel when you're building an experience?

The reason a PS3 isn't integrated into a TV is two fold: Space and intent. 1. A PS3 requires heat removal and room for components. A specialized chipset designed to stream content doesn't. 2. Intent. The PS3 is a multi-purpose (or general purpose) device meant to play high end games, stream media, play Blue Ray and DVD discs. The Apple TV as we know it doesn't want or need to do any of that.

An Apple TV experience could redefine the flat screen as we know it. More competition in this market can only improve the user experience. Consider smart phones before and after the iPhone. A well executed Apple LED TV would be the kind of market disruption we need.

please no Apple.... besides I'm sure they'd be so expensive as to be a niche item anyway.... like most of their products...

then again, I miss the Pioneer Kuro line... :( they were gone before I was ever in a position to get one...

While I agree (for all the excellent points around commoditization that Ryan raised) that Apple probably *shouldn't* enter the consumer "Best Buy" TV business, it is interesting to consider how that would look. If I was a marketing manager and Steve asked me for ways that Apple could get into this business and be successful, any display product would most likely be aimed at the incredibly high end crowd. And I'm talking even more high end than traditional MacBook Pro-premium price paying folks.

On the Engadget HD podcast, they often revel in the beauty that was 'The Pioneer Kuro Plasma' and the "Pioneer Elite" brand that is no more and while Samsung's high end LED model and Sony and Panasonic have had higher end models, there haven't been any Pioneer Elite class models. Nothing that can be considered the definitive "reference design", basically. I can totally see Apple designing a "50" Cinema Display with Retina Display quality". I mean, I can totally hear Steve now: "This is the best thing we've ever done." And you'd have to price it at a Mercedes-like premium. Now, you wouldn't really have the volume, but you'd establish yourself as THE premium television. Kinda like seeing a Sub Zero refrigerator in someone's home. It's like a status symbol.

Even given their ridiculous cash position and the fact that they probably can experiment here without too much risk, I just don't see the volume upside ever coming. But if I had to do it, I'd use those points. And I wouldn't sell them in Best Buy at all. Or any retailer for that matter. You'd have to go to the "Magnolia" equivalent in certain special Apple Retail Stores to see them. I guarantee that certain offices would put them up as their presentation displays. It would be a total status symbol for an office to upgrade to Cinema Displays. It would be like the new Aeron chair.

You say Apple can't innovate because they don't manufacture the displays and yet no-one else sports a retina display on their smartphone or tablet.

I agree, however, that they will not build TVs but set-top-boxes. But here's the critical difference I think Apple will include. "i OS-TV." Most people have one TV, or at least one *good* TV. There is no such thing as one box you can plug into that TV that will do "everything" a TV is good for. Game console, cable/satellite box, internet video, general media (think photos & home movies). All of these things are in separate boxes or possibly combined into a horrendously complex beast that your average consumer would have no hope of achieving.

Enter Apple with a hybrid between the current Apple TV and an AV receiver. The "receiver" is just like today's receivers with two important differences. First, although there is a small LED display on the front, the main interface is on the TV screen. Second, the receiver is able to accept signals from *and control* many connected devices. See the list above of separate boxes.

In short, Apple's new idea will be to create an OS for your TV. All those devices currently come with their own controllers, their own (often horrible) on-screen interfaces and they're all markedly different. Yes, a PS3 can play net video but it's hardly a consumer-level living room experience. It's a hack at best. Now imagine a variation on the current Apple TV's "40 foot" interface, but add "Games" and "TV" to the main menu. Want to surf your channel guide? It'll be no different than surfing your iTunes library. Want to see what games your console has loaded? Same interface.

If you go back and listen to Jobs' D8 interview, you can hear him say what the current problem is with the living room TV - it's all those disparate boxes that companies are making a loss on and you can't replace them. So why not unify them? Build a set of standards through which they can interact with the receiver and it's control mechanism - most likely a touch pad in the hand. Sure, you'll still need game controllers, but they can come with the appropriate box just as they do now.

For some years now I have balked at buying into any box that hooks up to my TV because none of them will do everything I want. With the TV OS that problem goes away. I can teach the family one simple interface and away they go.

yes it should. till date their products are REVOLUTIONARY!

Apple should solve two problems: 1) TV usability. Trying to choose input 4 on the TV and the gray remote to control the DVD is a nightmare for most. This is a perfect problem for Apple to solve. 2) finding and watching content. We have multiple streams, cable TV subscription, DVD, Blu-ray, digital movies, etc. Help us organize that.

How Apple does that is a good question. Certainly a good percentage of folks will be happy with a TV purchase, to be done with the whole thing and get on with enjoying TV for once. Others are going to prefer a box only. I think this is not unlike iMac vs Mac mini, where several form factors make sense and could be utilized.