Analyst Claims Apple Shopping for TV Components From Major Supplier

[Phillip Swanson]

Not a bad mockup of what Apple's HDTV could look like. The only thing missing is the price...


According to a report by a Piper Jaffray analyst Apple has contacted at least one major supplier about television display components.

Gene Munster, of Piper Jaffray, told investors Tuesday that during talks with a “major TV component supplier” about Apple’s rumored HDTV the supplier told Jaffray Apple had reached out “regarding various capabilities of their television display components.”

Munster views this as “continued evidence” of Apple’s exploration into television production. This is far from concrete evidence that Apple will be releasing a television set soon, and Munster acknowledges this citing the rumored roadblocks Apple has faced securing content from studios. It seems logical that Apple would secure distribution deals before ramping up production on an Apple HDTV. No sense putting something to market with nothing to show on it.

However, if Apple did release a television set this year Piper Jaffray predicts the company could sell 1.4 million of the projected 106 million internet-connected televisions to be sold during the year. Munster seems to know more than his parent company PJ, noting that Apple only enters mature markets to reinvent them. But, PJ still goes on to make revenue estimates for 2012-2014 on a device that doesn’t exist.

If and when Apple enters the HDTV market, Apple will likely blind side current HDTV manufacturers and surprise a number of content providers as well. Apple isn’t going to release a TV with no content, but if their vision is to provide customized channel lineups for users, they're negotiating licensing deals needed to support a feature like that has no pricing precedent.

Hopefully Apple can pull it off. I’m sick of Dish Network, AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, Verizon, Direct TV and every single colluding cable company I forgot to mention.

Source: Apple Insider

[Gustavo Saliola]

Computer, Music, Retail, Cellphone, Tablet, TV... // ... Space Travel, Time Travel? What's next...

[buttamix]

Computer, Music, Retail, Cellphone, Tablet, TV... // ... Space Travel, Time Travel? What's next...

SKYNET?!?!?!? And the battle for mankind

[CZroe]

"Not a bad mockup of what Apple's HDTV could look like. The only thing missing is the price..."

SRSLY?! A good mockup must at least be possible and "3D no glasses Full HD" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of stereoscopic 3D. If you understand how glasses-free 3D works, then you understand why it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people. EVER.

Also, why would the "MultiTouch screen" icon show a single finger? It should demonstrate what it states if it is going to be illustrated at all.

[feidhlim1986]

If you understand how glasses-free 3D works, then you understand why it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people. EVER.

I do believe there are prototype Glasses Free 3D TV that CAN be viewed by multiple people at multiple angles.
Your right in saying the tech in the likes of the 3DS can't be viewed by multiple people though.

[Loxs]

"Not a bad mockup of what Apple's HDTV could look like. The only thing missing is the price..."

SRSLY?! A good mockup must at least be possible and "3D no glasses Full HD" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of stereoscopic 3D. If you understand how glasses-free 3D works, then you understand why it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people. EVER.

LG showed off their glasses free 3dtv at CES in January and viewing for upto 9 people. So it can work for multiple people.

look it up.

[Freedom7]

If Siri is included, then you wouldn't need multitouch.

[Silverado1987]

Not bad

[CZroe]

I do believe there are prototype Glasses Free 3D TV that CAN be viewed by multiple people at multiple angles.
Your right in saying the tech in the likes of the 3DS can't be viewed by multiple people though.

You must've been buyin' it when those stupid cartoons that said "Anything is possible. All you gotta do is believe!"

This isn't a religion. Your faith isn't going to make it real. Sure. An imaginary holographic display could create a hologram of a stereo display, but what would the point be except for legacy stereoscopic movies from centuries ago?

LG showed off their glasses free 3dtv at CES in January and viewing for upto 9 people. So it can work for multiple people.

look it up.

Idiot detected... CONFIRMED! I've been looking into glasses-free stereo 3D for the last 14 years. I wondered why it took the 3DS so long to implement something I saw at CES in 1999.

Anyway, when I say "it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people" I mean for multiple people without fixed perspectives (duh). There is simply no way around it: Each eye must receive a different image for the stereo effect. There is no way to show stereo 3D with head-tracking without combining the two techs. The only way to do stereo without per-eye filters is to restrict the angle from which the image is visible or to out-right project two images into each eye (the equivalent of having a single display per eye). Toshiba's tech that you talk about (NOT LG) is exactly the same concept as parallax barrier and lenticular displays. The only difference is that it can use facial recognition to determine the position of each viewer's head and reverse the two stereo images for viewers in positions that would have each eye seeing the wrong image. NOTE: That's not "head tracking 3D" either. That does not double the number of sweet spots because two viewers can have conflicting positions on opposite sides of the room. Also, the lens needs four times as many pixels to display a decent resolution in 3D. That means it has a pretty nice resolution in 2D mode, but it makes for a pretty "muddy" 3D mode. Now, Apple seems to think that 720p is all the HD we need and most 3D is 720p, but it still seems like a waste of FOUR TIMES 1080p resolution for a half-assed solution that's only slightly more useable than the current lenticular 3D displays, don't you think?

[Beastly L92]

3D is garbage and a multitouch tv sounds like the worst idea I've ever heard. Why would I want to get up and walk across the living room to put smudges on my tv on purpose?

Besides, we all know Apple will release it as a locked down, crippled, digital content profiting machine.

No thanks. 55" Samsung 7500 series led + MacMini server. Out the door for less than $3k with more features than Apple will ever deliver in a tv.

[The6uest]

Why would a TV need to be a touchscreen anyways? That seems like a waste of money to me..

Now a touchscreen remote app for iDevices would be cool.

[Loxs]

Y
Idiot detected... CONFIRMED! I've been looking into glasses-free stereo 3D for the last 14 years. I wondered why it took the 3DS so long to implement something I saw at CES in 1999.

Anyway, when I say "it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people" I mean for multiple people without fixed perspectives (duh). There is simply no way around it: Each eye must receive a different image for the stereo effect. There is no way to show stereo 3D with head-tracking without combining the two techs. The only way to do stereo without per-eye filters is to restrict the angle from which the image is visible or to out-right project two images into each eye (the equivalent of having a single display per eye). Toshiba's tech that you talk about (NOT LG) is exactly the same concept as parallax barrier and lenticular displays. The only difference is that it can use facial recognition to determine the position of each viewer's head and reverse the two stereo images for viewers in positions that would have each eye seeing the wrong image. NOTE: That's not "head tracking 3D" either. That does not double the number of sweet spots because two viewers can have conflicting positions on opposite sides of the room. Also, the lens needs four times as many pixels to display a decent resolution in 3D. That means it has a pretty nice resolution in 2D mode, but it makes for a pretty "muddy" 3D mode. Now, Apple seems to think that 720p is all the HD we need and most 3D is 720p, but it still seems like a waste of FOUR TIMES 1080p resolution for a half-assed solution that's only slightly more useable than the current lenticular 3D displays, don't you think?

Wow, it's a shame your manners aren't to the same level of your 3d knowledge. Now listen, you said this:

If you understand how glasses-free 3D works, then you understand why it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people. EVER.

That was your statement. Its quite clear that glasses free 3D can be viewed by multiple people. Don't get all defensive because your first statement was incorrect.
Hands-on with Toshiba's 4K glasses-free 3DTV prototype -- Engadget


It clearly proves your statement wrong. I don't even care about the technology involved here, I'm purely saying glasses free 3d does work for multiple people. The tech is there and it's being shown off as we speak.

Next time just be polite and not such a jackass trying to put people down. It's not cool and you just come off looking kinda silly as this is of course a discussion thread.

Hands-on Toshiba's 55-inch 4K glasses-free 3DTV -- Engadget Slightly more up to date look at this glasses free TV.

[idkanymore]

I can't wait to play doodle jump on the new apple tvs!

[feidhlim1986]

You must've been buyin' it when those stupid cartoons that said "Anything is possible. All you gotta do is believe!"

This isn't a religion. Your faith isn't going to make it real. Sure. An imaginary holographic display could create a hologram of a stereo display, but what would the point be except for legacy stereoscopic movies from centuries ago?

Some one woke up on the wrong side of the arsehole bed this morning.

Glasses Free 3D TV that CAN be viewed by multiple people does exist. Obviously moving around breaks the effect, but so do glasses-dependant systems just on a lesser scale. Personally I've got enough self control to sit still while watching TV, judging from your knee-jerk response to someone pointing out your mistake you're probably too high strung to sit in one place for more than 5 minutes.

Next time, don't make foolish general statements like "it could never work for a screen viewed by multiple people. EVER."
14 years of research into any tech should have taught you that.

PS: Using the word "believe" is not limited to the topic of religion

[CZroe]

Wow, it's a shame your manners aren't to the same level of your 3d knowledge. Now listen, you said this:



That was your statement. Its quite clear that glasses free 3D can be viewed by multiple people. Don't get all defensive because your first statement was incorrect.
Hands-on with Toshiba's 4K glasses-free 3DTV prototype -- Engadget


It clearly proves your statement wrong. I don't even care about the technology involved here, I'm purely saying glasses free 3d does work for multiple people. The tech is there and it's being shown off as we speak.

Next time just be polite and not such a jackass trying to put people down. It's not cool and you just come off looking kinda silly as this is of course a discussion thread.

Hands-on Toshiba's 55-inch 4K glasses-free 3DTV -- Engadget Slightly more up to date look at this glasses free TV.

You're arguing semantics. The fake feature badge didn't even specify more than one person. I was clearly saying that it wasn't feasible nor would it ever be feasible to implement in a non-personal way that didn't have serious drawbacks such that Apple would never consider it. Did I have to go into detail why Toshiba would do it but not Apple? I hope not. Toshiba is creating an $11,000 television. That's not exactly an "Apple Tax" on a product with mainstream appeal: that's special-purpose niche market gimmick with serious hindrances to mass-market useability with no forseeable way around it.

[emer_cvt]

Also, why would the "MultiTouch screen" icon show a single finger? It should demonstrate what it states if it is going to be illustrated at all.

one or two?

[CZroe]

one or two?

One. The thumb is neither in position for pinching nor is it a finger.