Shared publicly  - 
Shawn Busteed's profile photoMike Potratz's profile photoYuan LIU's profile photo
Having worked in broadcasting for 35+ years, I find it hard to figure out how a person can "reinvent TV".  A TV is a display device, nothing more.  It's what you can connect to it that gives it it's functionality.  Touch screen is out cause people don't sit that close.  So what's left?  Another way to display proprietary content on a display.   Add a computer inside and you still have a computer connected to a display device.  The only thing that can be "reinvented" is the interface where you select what content to display.

My thoughts?  You're gonna get a iMac with a 46" LED displayed on the front end.  Revolutionary?  Don't think so.
Maybe it's because you've been in broadcasting for 35+ years that you will can't understand this.
Interesting thought.  But I'm just looking at my almost 2 year old 46" flatscreen that connects to the internet, plays streaming video and a multitude of video and audio formats, has multiple I/O ports on it, can be controlled by my Blu-Ray player.  Got one controller that handles my dish, dvr, blu-ray, tv.  Can get to Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu, Vudu, Youtube, internet, news & weather services, games, etc., etc. Auto updates the onboard OS, connects to my computer.  Can plug in USB drives, hang external hard drives off of it, play media on any computer in my home network, which includes any cloud storage I have, Do slide shows of all my photos(pick a format!). My remote moves the cursor around the screen.

Remote keyboards and mice have been around for years so that's not a new idea. Turning a 46" TV into a 46" tablet?  MS has the Kinect so that's taken.   And touch screen doesn't work cause you don't sit close enough to a TV for that to work... It's already an embedded computer' inside so that's not new.

Other than connecting to iTunes and having an iOS interface and OS, what am I missing? 

And the last capability my flatscreen has is it's not locked into the iTunes and apple ecosystem... And being that I only payed about $700 for it I think I could safely say it would have been multitudes of dollars cheaper than an Apple offering.  Oops, forgot to mention it's a Samsung.....
"TV is a display device?"  Once upon a time, not too long ago, a professor turned telecom executive made this statement: "The Mobile Apps are build to co-exist with the telephony on a mobile phone. The value proposition of telephony is so strong that it does not allow apps to co-exist as principal applications and hence they struggle for usage." That "mobile phone is a voice device" sounds familiar?

The point is: Do you feel something amiss when you sit down on your couch? (Forget that "tube", just focus on the couch.  Imagine you have a couch and a cable; or satellite dish; or bunny ear for that matter.  And think of cable, satellite, and radio not as prepackaged channels as we know them today, but merely as physical media that can carry entertainment content.  Forget Internet content just for now.)  If you do, you can see a million ways to view TV as not bound as a display device.  Whatever Apple has in its sleeves, it is unwise for them to ignore the existing media.  I may not like their price point for the rumoured set, but have no fear about being walled by iTunes Store.

Indeed, I can imagine a better experience without any content being delivered via the Internet. (That's not to say that this experience can be realised without the Internet.)  Who says an Apple TV has to draw paid content from iTunes Store?
Add a comment...