http://www.techradar.com/blogs/article/ ... ce--654391

So what do we think about that then? And I don't mean the somewhat anti-Apple stance of the article

a load of codswollop.

I read this the other month in the mag.

Could be interesting (how gorgeous would a 42" widescreen aluminium surround screen look)

I was thinking the same thing funnily enough

+1

But I'll have to put up with this Xmas present

Hmmm sounds like sticking an Apple TV inside something like a 27" display.
Hang on - they've already done that! It's called an iMac!

As widgets are so popular with new TV's

Imagine a 42" screen with apple monitor design & the app store

Jason Calacanis started the rumours of a 42" Apple television a year ago...

The current iMac shows the direction, you can wall mount it and feed it with an external blu-ray drive or satellite receiverer to use it as a television or you can use the Mac side to use FrontRow for multimedia, or use it as a computer to surfe the web etc.

Throw that out there, with a 42" screen, have the video in and either iMac electronics or an Apple TV built into it and it could be a winner - you can plug in your Roku or whatever or use the Apple iTunes Store or locally stored video...

It's a nice idea but the thing that kills me about this is the market itself is diversified in a way that goes against the way Apple works. And I don't see why an AppleTV *in a TV* would necessarily sell any better than the AppleTV has anyway - it's not as if TVs are so uncommon people would think having them bundled together was somehow an advantage.

Most of us buy our television content completely independently of the thing we have to view it on - you don't buy your TV from Sky or Virgin, do you? So Apple will not just be entering one market, but two. Both of which are highly competitive and mature. Flat Screen TVs are virtually a commoditised market - I can get a good quality 50" TV for significantly less than the 27" iMac costs - so how much would a '50" iMac' cost? 2 grand? 3? Plus Apple have no handle to get into the content market this way - They already do sell a way to get content onto your TV - it's the Apple TV and essentially nobody is buying it. Adding a screen wouldn't make the Apple TV a big seller; people already have TVs.

The essence of the problem is Apple break into markets not simply by providing what already exists in a nice package (which is all this would be) but by providing a more intuitive path to what is already there. I don't think it's possible to get any more intuitive than a TV and a remote control - if you put an AppleTV in a big screen that's still all you'd be left with, just now you've got navigate three menus to get to your content rather than just pressing '3'.

The way that Apple would have to succeed in this market is if it could somehow convince the major content providers to use it as a conduit, like they convinced the music industry. And the problem is they've all seen what happened when the music industry did that, and how Apple ended up stealing all their lunches, and they're hardly likely to make the same mistake again.

Just what would the 'killer app' for this device be? TV on demand? Got it already. Timeshifting? Got it already. High definition content? Got it already. Intuitive control? Got it already. Looks cool - OK but how many people are prepared to pay a grand extra for a TV that looks slightly cooler than a Panasonic Viera?

Jon

I also don't see a use for it.

I was just putting forward a possibility.

My TV came with a built-in satellite receiver - terrestrial television isn't very good in Germany, so most people use freeview satellite or cable. Replacing that with an IPTV streaming device could be the future, but the market is too diversified at the moment, so having something like the Apple TV doesn't make much sense - but would be cheaper than putting an iMac inside the TV, but I think a wall mounted, large screen iMac is probably more likely...

*If* Apple go this route, I expect it to be more of a media-PC iMac integrated into a 42" panel (possibly high res again, like the 27" iMac, as opposed to 1080p...

But I think it would be a very niche product.

Large screen high quality monitors are monumentally expensive. You can get a 40" 1080p TV for less than £1000, but a 30" decent monitor that's say 2500*1600 will cost slightly more than that. And the price increases on an upward curve as the size does. A 40" computer quality panel (as oppose to TV quality, which isn't near as good) would cost you the best part of £2000, if you could get one (you can't - they can't make computer quality screens that big in sufficient quantity yet because the panel failure rate is too high). That's £2000 without any complicated computery bits and at one of the lowest profit margins in electronics. Throw in say a good iMacs worth of bits - HDD, CPU etc - and put Apple's profit margin on it and you're looking at something with a retail price of around 4 grand. Most people don't spend that on a car, let alone a TV.
A panel that big would also kick out a lot of heat, so you'd need decent cooling for the computery bits, so it wouldn't be very slim Might still be wall mountable though, with a sturdy bracket.

It's a feasible product, electronically. It's just not a feasible product commercially. I actually think we might get something like this when OLED screens get big enough because they kick out a lot less heat, can be thinner and, once people figure out the tech, will actually be cheaper to make at large sizes. But I reckon that's at least 5 years away from being at market at anything other than 'early adopter' price.

Jon

Very true, but the 27" iMac uses a new screen size (16:9 version of the 30" 16:10 resolution), but the price, for an IPS panel with LCD backlight costs, with integrated computer, costs less than any equivalent IPS panel!

Likewise, when the original 24" iMac came out, 24" panels cost nearly 1,500€, so the price of around 1,900€ for the original 24" iMac was very good value for money. Nowadays 24" panels start at around 250€.

If Apple can do the same trick again, they might find a winner.

But I agree, using current technology, it doesn't make any sense, unless they have found something new, which isn't covered currently in the market.