Author Topic: Apple iTV (Read 970 times)

rarely_upset · « **on:** January 10, 2012, 02:57:59 AM »

LA Times
Digitimes
Cult of Mac

No bezel - all display (at super-high resolution {think Retina} too)!
Gesture and voice control - to find/change channels and shows definitely. Waving your hands around in front of the TV?
Smartphone/Tablet Interactivity - iPhone as a fancy remote? Angry Birds HD? Start a movie on iPad, finish on iTV? Don't know what they'll do with this.

Apple's been trying to get a deal with media companies for TV channels a la carte - buy what you want.

It's unconfirmed so far, but I won't be surprised if this does happen. What do you think? Will it be everything they say it will? Will it be worth what Apple will charge?

IMO, iTV probably will have most of those features, but cost a LOT. I won't get one any time soon, it probably won't be worth it and I just got a 60" TV over the holidays.

mgz · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:16:42 AM »

ill take the sony tv that will be using kinect technology over itv will prolly cost half the price out of the gates too since it doesnt have a white apple on it anywhere

rarely_upset · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:29:50 AM »

Apple always has the same problem - price.
Can't be helped I guess, white apples don't grow on trees.

metro. · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2012, 06:50:33 AM »

Quote from: rarely_upset on January 10, 2012, 03:29:50 AM

Can't be helped I guess, white apples don't grow on trees.

Fuck yes.

Honestly, it'll also have the problem with the fact it hates interfacing with anything that isn't a Mac.

halfelite · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:54:34 AM »

Will be the same problem with the appletv, its a piece of junk hence why everyone does what is needed to run xbmc on it. Wouldn't be surprised if they lock there tv to 720p also, as they seem to think people dont like 1080p,

And voice commands for a tv is a no go. your are watching an intense movie and someone yells "tv turn off" and bam you miss your movie.

No bezel tv's are already here, LG showed off there 55" oled tv at CES people are showing off there 4k displays when there isnt even 4k content. So having the best display I doubt it. It will be an over priced hunk of icrap that links into itunes only.

But then again its apple so people will eat it up. they will say they are the first to have no bezel the first to stream video to your home, the first to have an iphone controlled tv.

1000mAh · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:24:08 AM »

I'm going to circle this crap far away, not gonna touch with a long stick unless I'm forced to.

Freedom Kira · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:34:01 AM »

The biggest problem I have with TVs today is that the screen sizes just keep increasing but the resolution doesn't. A 72" LCD on the market has the same resolution as my 32". Apple's push on the 4K resolution could be a useful first step in giving this problem a good kick in the ass towards improvement.

shikitohno · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2012, 01:46:54 PM »

I've already got an HDTV hooked up to an Arch desktop that's capable of doing full 1080p. Once Netflix opens up to linux for streaming (which is supposed to be later this year), that machine will essentially do everything I could want from an Apple iTV. Aside from that, I have it does some more fun stuff that an Apple iTV probably won't, like play as a local media server and download stuff with rtorrent. When I get a new TV and desktop in another couple years, that combo will probably get me the same functionality as an iTV and them some, and still wind up costing me less. Another Apple device that I fail to see the need for, but it'll probably be really successful with a certain crowd of people.

Who knows now, though? Maybe this will actually turn out to be an Apple device that actually has something going for it to make me want it. I doubt it though.

kitamesume · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2012, 02:26:52 PM »

i find 1080p on an 32" lacking, saw some demo units in front of a shop and pixels are still visible from 1meters away.

i'm seeing this sad reality that all people see is money and profit, rather than advancement and innovation. though cant really blame them, without money the latter is well over impossible to achieve =P oh wait, i could blame corrupt people that keeps pocketing their R&D funds XD

GoGeTa006 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2012, 04:34:44 PM »

Quote from: rarely_upset on January 10, 2012, 03:29:50 AM

Apple always has the same problem - price.
Can't be helped I guess, white apples don't grow on trees.

wow that is an amazing phrase right there

loved it!

anyways, even though I doubt I can afford it, it will be really interesting to see whats released. . . WHETHER YOU LIKE TO ADMIT IT OR NOT apple has revolutionized most of the markets it has touched

they are pricey I'll admit it, but TBH they just sell the "synergy" painted in white and it has worked for them for years and it will continue to do so. . .

this project seems promising. . .iono what to expect on a TV these days. . .

I used to sell TV's at sears. . .and seriously. . .TV's now come with some integrated console/PC on them. . .videogames/netflix and all that stuff. . .its amazing what they're comming out with. . . So im really anxious to see if apple will just "join the herd" or will it completely change what a TV is

Quote from: Freedom Kira on January 10, 2012, 10:34:01 AM

The biggest problem I have with TVs today is that the screen sizes just keep increasing but the resolution doesn't. A 72" LCD on the market has the same resolution as my 32". Apple's push on the 4K resolution could be a useful first step in giving this problem a good kick in the ass towards improvement.

yes I have always wondered that myself. . .having 720p on a 19" and a 42" doesnt really make sense. . . IMO they should sell TV's advertising their DPI instead of their overall resolution. . . that would make more sense IMO (regardless of HD signal comming at 1080)

halfelite · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2012, 05:14:00 PM »

Quote from: GoGeTa006 on January 10, 2012, 04:34:44 PM

yes I have always wondered that myself. . .having 720p on a 19" and a 42" doesnt really make sense. . . IMO they should sell TV's advertising their DPI instead of their overall resolution. . . that would make more sense IMO (regardless of HD signal comming at 1080)

DPI has no effected on a tv you are not watching the tv from 6" away you are watching it from 6+ feet back. your standard 40" tv has a dpi of like 46 or something as tv sizes grow the dpi goes down. that huge jumbo tron 1080p tv at dallas stadium has like 0.8 dpi. tv's run on a fixed size in pixels hence dpi does not matter or in tv world i think they refer to it as ppi.

GoGeTa006 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 10, 2012, 06:04:16 PM »

Quote from: halfelite on January 10, 2012, 05:14:00 PM

Quote from: GoGeTa006 on January 10, 2012, 04:34:44 PM

yes I have always wondered that myself. . .having 720p on a 19" and a 42" doesnt really make sense. . . IMO they should sell TV's advertising their DPI instead of their overall resolution. . . that would make more sense IMO (regardless of HD signal comming at 1080)

DPI has no effected on a tv you are not watching the tv from 6" away you are watching it from 6+ feet back. your standard 40" tv has a dpi of like 46 or something as tv sizes grow the dpi goes down. that huge jumbo tron 1080p tv at dallas stadium has like 0.8 dpi. tv's run on a fixed size in pixels hence dpi does not matter or in tv world i think they refer to it as ppi.

yeah that. . .what i meant is that. . .its not like they require HUGE technology to make the same PPI on a 19" than on a 40". . .why not keep the same PPI and just have it have a higher resolution . . .instead of lowering the PPI as the TV size increases. . .IMO thats not cool

rarely_upset · « **Reply #12 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:57:17 PM »

Well, it wouldn't be a huge technological leap forward to keep PPI while increasing size, but a) bigger screens are meant for being further away from, so the pixels would be wasted and b) video source would have to keep up, and then there would be a lot of different resolutions that would have to be scaled up/down depending on what you were watching on.

GoGeTa006 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:31:17 AM »

Quote from: rarely_upset on January 10, 2012, 11:57:17 PM

Well, it wouldn't be a huge technological leap forward to keep PPI while increasing size, but a) bigger screens are meant for being further away from, so the pixels would be wasted and b) video source would have to keep up, and then there would be a lot of different resolutions that would have to be scaled up/down depending on what you were watching on.

eeeh at the end of the day its all on the 4:6 or 16:9 ratio. . .

ANYWAYS. . .apple tends to come up with this little things that add up and make them apple. . .although I seriously cant imagine anything "new" for the TV industry

prolly if they add SiRi to their televisions or something. . .

metro. · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:46:03 AM »

Fuck I'd be depressed if they did that.

rarely_upset · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2012, 01:11:08 AM »

I'm sure there'd be a hilarious glitch where Siri picks up the movie you're watching and does something ridiculous.

Freedom Kira · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:29:39 AM »

Quote from: rarely_upset on January 10, 2012, 11:57:17 PM

Well, it wouldn't be a huge technological leap forward to keep PPI while increasing size, but a) bigger screens are meant for being further away from, so the pixels would be wasted and b) video source would have to keep up, and then there would be a lot of different resolutions that would have to be scaled up/down depending on what you were watching on.

The distance you are away from the TV is irrelevant - I mean, sure, we don't sit in front of a TV at the same distance as we do from a monitor - the issue is that HD is not really HD anymore, when you have 1080p but the screen size is huge. You're seeing as much pixellation, or worse pixellation, as you did on TVs from a few years ago that weren't HD.

As for the video source, that's irrelevant too. 1080p TVs already have to upscale the picture from pretty much everything you've got. Plenty of people still have their VCRs hooked up, and I'm sure the vast majority still have their old DVD players, which I can pretty much guarantee did not output at 1080p. And then the TV signal is usually not 1080p; at least around these parts, HDTV is merely 720p, not sure about the rest of the world.

Modern HDMI technology is already capable of handling resolutions greater than 1080p. It's very odd why TVs haven't started supporting those resolutions yet.

rarely_upset · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:13:24 AM »

Well, I can't speak for you but it's pretty hard to see pixellation until you're about 1.5 m from my TV (60" 1080p).

My experience with TV upscaling is pretty bad, though. before I got HDMI cables for my player, the delay between the sound and the picture was noticeable (even by my mom, which is saying something). Then again, different TVs perform differently so YMMV.

What I was saying about sources is that most things today, when released in HD are 1080p. People with a 4k resolution TV would either not have the resolution they wanted, or an upscale, which BakaBT doesn't seem to advocate unless done perfectly; something I don't expect a TV to do. If TV's were advertised on PPI, then a 32" tv and a 34" TV would have different resolutions if PPI became a standard instead of resolution. Even then, movies would still be released in a certain resolution, which probably would be higher than 1080p, but still too high or too low for most people.

halfelite · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:51:22 PM »

Quote from: Freedom Kira on January 11, 2012, 07:29:39 AM

As for the video source, that's irrelevant too. 1080p TVs already have to upscale the picture from pretty much everything you've got. Plenty of people still have their VCRs hooked up, and I'm sure the vast majority still have their old DVD players, which I can pretty much guarantee did not output at 1080p. And then the TV signal is usually not 1080p; at least around these parts, HDTV is merely 720p, not sure about the rest of the world.

That is what You only scale what you need to. if you are getting 720p or 1080i cable service output it at that dont scale it to 1080p. And never use a tv scaler, A decent scaler costs big bucks. unless you look into the marvell Qdeo‎ and soon to be sigma VXP

I direct source anything and everything I can.

Bob2004 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:59:37 PM »

Quote from: halfelite on January 11, 2012, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: Freedom Kira on January 11, 2012, 07:29:39 AM

As for the video source, that's irrelevant too. 1080p TVs already have to upscale the picture from pretty much everything you've got. Plenty of people still have their VCRs hooked up, and I'm sure the vast majority still have their old DVD players, which I can pretty much guarantee did not output at 1080p. And then the TV signal is usually not 1080p; at least around these parts, HDTV is merely 720p, not sure about the rest of the world.

That is what You only scale what you need to. if you are getting 720p or 1080i cable service output it at that dont scale it to 1080p. And never use a tv scaler, A decent scaler costs big bucks. unless you look into the marvell Qdeo‎ and soon to be sigma VXP

I direct source anything and everything I can.

halfelite, the TV is 1080 pixels high, so if the video is 720 pixels high, then it has to be upscaled to fit the whole screen. If you don't do any scaling at all, then smaller source video won't fill up the screen; it'll only fill an area that's 720 pixels high. So if you're watching, say, a 480p dvd, then you have to either scale it up to fit the screen, or play it in a tiny corner of the screen (roughly quarter of the screen's actual area or so, I guess it would be). Which kind of defeats the point of getting a big TV.