iPhone and 50 inch Apple Monitor?

[timmillwood]

Huh? Plasmas dominate the market above 42". It is extremely (prohibitively) expensive to make large LCD screens. LCD screens don't handle fast paced motion (crucial for sports and movies) nearly as well as plasmas (because of slower refresh, LCD becomes blurry where image is changing rapidly), and plasma screens are rated to last around 62,000 hours before burn-in problems. Do some research.

I would never buy an LCD TV!!!

Your right Plasmas are better, i love the better colours, deeper blacks, glass fronted glossy picture, no motion blur, they are GREAT!! u just gotta be careful not to leave somthing paused for too long.

I would like to see a 50" plasma from Apple with Min 1920x1080 res, 10,000:1 contrast ratio, 2 hdmi, 1 dvi built in iTV.

 

[vi2867]

I have an LCD "37, and I chose the LCD instead of a Plasma because the room I put it in was very brite.

Plasmas:

Cost More
Needs to be in a darker room
Has a burn effect issue
Life of the TV is shorter

LCD:

Cost Less
Works fine in a brite room
No burn effect
Life of the TV is longer than plasma

 

[lmalave]

Huh? Plasmas dominate the market above 42". It is extremely (prohibitively) expensive to make large LCD screens. LCD screens don't handle fast paced motion (crucial for sports and movies) nearly as well as plasmas (because of slower refresh, LCD becomes blurry where image is changing rapidly), and plasma screens are rated to last around 62,000 hours before burn-in problems. Do some research.

Umm...ok...last time I checked LCD displays were just fine and handling fast paced motion. Are you saying everyone watching DVDs on their laptops or iMacs are just suckers? Not to mention gaming which is even faster-paced. Last time I checked, worrying about gaming on an LCD was pretty much a non-issue.

As as for the price, have you checked Best Buy? The prices are not *that* far off. Best Buy is selling the Sony Bravia 46" LCD TVs for $2499. Granted, a 46" plasma would probably sell for about $2000 or even less. So I think Apple is capable of producing a quality 50" display for about $3000, and I think they would find plenty of buyers. I mean, why do people buy Apple displays in the first place? It doesn't seem like Apple is having any trouble even though they are overpriced....

 

[Mammoth]

A 50-inch Apple Monitor?

Now that would made video conferencing on iChat downright scary in full-screen mode. Exit Big Brother, enter HUGE Brother.

...And total pixelation.

Otherwise, a 50" Apple Television would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[vi2867]

Costco is selling a "37 LCD Vizio (made by samsung) for $999.99, and a "50 Vizio Plasma for $1999.00.

Costco offers a 5 year return policy, just return your tv no questions asked...

 

[clintob]

Plasmas:
Cost More
Needs to be in a darker room
Has a burn effect issue
Life of the TV is shorter

LCD:
Cost Less
Works fine in a brite room
No burn effect
Life of the TV is longer than plasma

Not entirely accurate. Plasmas are cheaper than LCDs virtually across the board (except at very small sizes). The dark vs bright room issue is pretty debatable - we're really only talking about brightness levels that are separated by tiny amounts. Very difficult to tell with the naked eye. I'm an LCD fan, but the brightness issue is very overblown. They're essentially the same in that regard.

LCD screens don't handle fast paced motion (crucial for sports and movies) nearly as well as plasmas (because of slower refresh, LCD becomes blurry where image is changing rapidly), and plasma screens are rated to last around 62,000 hours before burn-in problems. Do some research.

This is nonsense. CHEAP LCD TVs don't have fast enough refresh rates to handle very fast action motion without missing information, but high end sets handle it just fine. This is an outdated issue... early LCD TVs had the artifact issue with high speed motion, but it's no longer part of the equation.

At the end of the day, the choice comes down to this: Plasma, albeit after several years, has been proven to show burn-in tendancies, especially if you use sidebars instead of stretching your picture. LCD has no such issues, but in larger sizes is still noticeably more expensive than Plasma (although this gap is shortening).

LCD is by far the better technology, and if you have any doubt of that take a look at what the major companies are investing in development for Plasma vs. LCD. Some companies have already started phasing Plasma out of their lines completely. It's a dying technology... very slowly (it will be around for many years I'm sure), but it's replacement with LCD (or something comparable) is inevitable.

 

[bdj21ya]

Umm...ok...last time I checked LCD displays were just fine and handling fast paced motion. Are you saying everyone watching DVDs on their laptops or iMacs are just suckers? Not to mention gaming which is even faster-paced. Last time I checked, worrying about gaming on an LCD was pretty much a non-issue.

As as for the price, have you checked Best Buy? The prices are not *that* far off. Best Buy is selling the Sony Bravia 46" LCD TVs for $2499. Granted, a 46" plasma would probably sell for about $2000 or even less. So I think Apple is capable of producing a quality 50" display for about $3000, and I think they would find plenty of buyers. I mean, why do people buy Apple displays in the first place? It doesn't seem like Apple is having any trouble even though they are overpriced....

Last time you checked? Haha! Of course LCD screens "handle" fast paced motion. They just don't do it nearly as well as plasma screens. Go to an electronics store with the two side by side playing the same broadcast off the same feed. The LCD dithers/blurs wherever the picture is rapidly changing. I noticed this for myself while watching a soccer game; the camera has to pan pretty fast to keep up with the ball, and the LCD screen is not nearly as sharp as the plasma while the camera is panning.

 

[timmillwood]

i think both LCDs and Plasmas will be replaced soon...

But i may switch to LCD if the contrast and refresh rate was better on bigger screens.

I think LCD back lights will make the difference for contrast.
I would like an LCD with 10,000:1 contrast & 2ms response time time b4 i buy one

 

[bdj21ya]

This is nonsense. CHEAP LCD TVs don't have fast enough refresh rates to handle very fast action motion without missing information, but high end sets handle it just fine. This is an outdated issue... early LCD TVs had the artifact issue with high speed motion, but it's no longer part of the equation.

At the end of the day, the choice comes down to this: Plasma, albeit after several years, has been proven to show burn-in tendancies, especially if you use sidebars instead of stretching your picture. LCD has no such issues, but in larger sizes is still noticeably more expensive than Plasma (although this gap is shortening).

LCD is by far the better technology, and if you have any doubt of that take a look at what the major companies are investing in development for Plasma vs. LCD. Some companies have already started phasing Plasma out of their lines completely. It's a dying technology... very slowly (it will be around for many years I'm sure), but it's replacement with LCD (or something comparable) is inevitable.

I'm just basing my opinion on comparing the two side by side at an electronics store. I doubt it was a "cheap" model (that's not what the price tag told me anyway). Go compare them for yourself side by side. Plasma handles very fast motion with a sharper picture. LCD blurs/dithers the image.

However, I agree with you about Plasma being a dying technology. It sounds like Laser TV's will be the way of the future, if you believe the news that's coming out of Australia. Supposedly they show almost 3 times the color, they're half as thick, don't have burn-in issues, and cost half as much to manufacture.

 

[clintob]

I'm just basing my opinion on comparing the two side by side at an electronics store. I doubt it was a "cheap" model (that's not what the price tag told me anyway). Go compare them for yourself side by side. Plasma handles very fast motion with a sharper picture. LCD blurs/dithers the image.

Sounds like the issue might have been with that particular set/manufacturer more than LCD vs. Plasma. I haven't noticed any such issues in my 42" Sony LCD, and I'm really picky about that stuff. Also, keep in mind, most stores hook up their display units to massively jumbled feeds with tons of extra wiring, splicing, and sharing. To get a true representation, you really need to get the unit hooked up directly to a 1-set source and then check them out side by side. I think you'll see, in that case, very little difference.

[edit -->] Also, don't forget that your cables make a HUGE difference. If you hook up a Plasma with high-end cables, and an LCD with generic cables, you will see the types of artifacting and dithering that you're referring to pretty easily.

However, I agree with you about Plasma being a dying technology. It sounds like Laser TV's will be the way of the future, if you believe the news that's coming out of Australia. Supposedly they show almost 3 times the color, they're half as thick, don't have burn-in issues, and cost half as much to manufacture.

Yeah, I heard some hubbub about this a few weeks ago. It's only a matter of time before every TV available is 1080p or higher, double the contrast, triple the color, and 1" - 2" thick. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that within 3-5 years. Look at where TV was 3-5 years ago... it's an insanely rapid technology.

 

[macfan881]

This ive been expecting scense the introduction of itv it make sense for apple to launch itv then this to make it really apple moving into the living room " sorta to say now it makes u wonder if this comes out does this mean will the rumors start to resurface about the Media Center mini? to me it would make a perfect fit

 

[cecildk9999]

Nowadays, I would never rule out any feasible Apple rumor: iPhone, digital camera... Not saying they'll all happen, will be successful, or are even true, but I wouldn't RULE IT COMPLETELY OUT or say it will NEVER happen/take off.

I agree with you, although I think in this case, 'feasible' may be the important word. A 50'' TV is a crazy initial entry into the entertainment world. Maybe Apple will market some kind of TV with the iTV, but going for the gusto with a huge and expensive screen may scare aware some prospective customers. If you want to sell the whole package, it has to be appealing and accessible. And what ever happened to the iPod Hi-Fi speakers? Have those been remotely popular?

 

[BenRoethig]

50 inches is insane for a computer display, so I think we can throw that possibility out. If such a device is in consideration, it would have to be a T.V. There in lies the problem. Apple wouldn't enter that market unless it could innovate in some way. That means either a computer or iTV built into the device or the whole thing is B.S.

 

[neilw]

Of course a 50" computer display is crazy. The problem here is that one rumor got confused into two.

The real rumor is that the iPhone will have a 50" display.

 

[puckhead193]

anything under 60 is way to small IMO...
i would like an apple phone, But i would like it be like the blackberry Pearl

 

[paradillon]

Here is my post from 10/13/05

Apple is making the move on the living room. Front Row is the OS for the living room/living room appliance. The news media really hasn't touched on the signifigance of Front Row.

Apple has the consumers (installed ipod user base, not just us mac evangelists) on a leash and is leading them along the path to an apple intergrated home media future/device. Large display panel, Front Row interface, all the wireless connectivity, built in isight, hangs on the wall, yadda yadda yadda..... It's just going to be a while till we get there, apple has some money to make on the way selling all the iterations of products that get us there. It will be a fun ride.

They have been doing a great job captivating the consumer, they just need to maintain it. Bring people along just fast enough to keep their attention (buying and upgrading), while not letting them be distracted by flashy competing concepts, and doing all not too fast as to confuse them with the technology and losing them.

 

[bketchum]

50 inch is WAY too big!! although even though I doubt the Iphone will come out it does look pretty cool

Are you on drugs? It's okay if you are. I am. It's jus'... When you're on drugs, you should refrain from posting comments. Oh, look what I've done.

 

[dongmin]

Um, has anyone bothered to ask why Apple would even get into the TV business? What would Apple bring to the table that Dell, Samsung, Sony, and a million others haven't already???

And no, I wouldn't want iTV integrated. What would be the point?

 

[OdduWon]

just heard LG announced a new 55 inch plasma with the ability to watch shows up to 2 hours after the original air time.

 

[joeshell383]

Um, has anyone bothered to ask why Apple would even get into the TV business? What would Apple bring to the table that Dell, Samsung, Sony, and a million others haven't already???

And no, I wouldn't want iTV integrated. What would be the point?

That's what everyone thought when the iPod came out. I'm sure if Apple does it they will have something up their sleeve.

In addition, they are trying to move Apple "in your den, living room, car, and pocket," and integrate it all. iTV+iPod+Apple Cinema TV. Makes sense.

(Love to be able to use iPhone with click-wheel as remote)

 

[mashinhead]

Yeah, it's not a 50" monitor for your computer it's a 50" monitor as a TV. There's no way you could sell (or maybe even make) something that was 50" at the same resolution at the 30".

I have to agree, if this is true, which i think it's not, it's a tv which you have to mortgage your house to buy, if you have a house, makes sense with the iTV announcement. Maybe iTv is built in.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

...and with 4 million+ new PS3 owners looking for a new TV to run their games at full res, it could sell quite well!

Not exactly. According to ArsTechnica, Sony's having a lot of problems getting good lasers for the BlueRay drives and will be lucky to ship 100,000 PS3's to Japan and 400,000 to the U.S.

link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061020-8042.html

Maybe we'll see XBox 360 & their HD-DVD player bundle rebate deals with this Apple HDTV though! (yeah, right!)

(personally, I'm on the "Wii" bandwagon so HD isn't much of a big deal for me)

 

[BlueRevolution]

You know, I don't think I could have started a more fiery debate if I'd made a post saying:

MAC SUXXORZ

What is it about LCD vs Plasma that makes people want to kill each other? Who cares? It's a ****ing TV!

Anyway, I'd say the 50" display was a lot more reputable if it hadn't come in the same breath as iPhone. Although you have to consider - if the 30" display required the introduction of dual-link DVI, imagine the data rate on a 50" monitor. (I'm not talking about 50" TV here, that would probably be 1080i... no problem there.)

In summary, meh. I don't see it being incredibly expensive by huge TV standards, but I'm about as likely to own one as I am to switch to Windows.

 

[Lebowski]

There just isn't the market for an Apple TV.

just like there would never be a market for music downloads, people prefer CDs right?

look at it this way,

apple has all this great content on iTunes music store (tv shows, music, audiobooks, movies...), not to mention all of the consumers digital photos, movies, slideshows and whatnot.....

now, what good is selling movies through iTunes really? sure, iPods are cute, but not too many people want to sit and watch a 2 hour feature film on a 2 inch screen. they want that content on their couch, like they are used to. Exactly the reason Steve previewed the iTV. He wanted to re-assure us that if we start buying our media through apple, and we keep alot of our own media on our computers, that we wont be tied to an office computer, or huddled around a laptop.

Enter the iTV and Apple 50". they arent stupid. they want to build a little buzz about their stuff (video ipods, frontrow, movie downloads...), then when the time is right, they will revolutionize whatever they are working on, be it music, computers, movies... whatever. I know i would gladly have a beautifully designed apple 50" and an iTV in my living room than the loads of components i have now. Why would apple sell you something like the iTV, so you can hook it to some other manufacturers TV, when you can have the whole apple package in your living room.... sure, there are LOTS of people that have HDTV sets in their living rooms now, and wont justify the price/hassle of replacing their monitor with an apple one... so they can add the iTV for 300 bucks and integrate it to their exsisting setups. Then there are others that havent hopped on the panel TV bandwagon yet, and if the time is nearing for a consumer to pick out a new tv, and see how integrated and easy an apple display w/ iTV combo is, they may very well go that route. I know I have been planning on a plasma or LCD for awhile, and am just waiting for the right product......

 

[dongmin]

That's what everyone thought when the iPod came out. I'm sure if Apple does it they will have something up their sleeve.

In addition, they are trying to move Apple "in your den, living room, car, and pocket," and integrate it all. iTV+iPod+Apple Cinema TV. Makes sense.

(Love to be able to use iPhone with click-wheel as remote)

Yes, Apple's trying to move into the living room. That's what iTV is for. And it happens to be compatible with just about every TV & stereo out there.

The mp3 player-ipod analogy is OLD. And it's not really relevant. The portable mp3 player was a niche product in its infacy when the iPod came onto the scene. TVs...not exactly a new market. TVs are TVs--it's basically a dumb box for displaying video feeds. It's useless until you add another box to feed it content (cable box, DVD player, TiVo, iTV, etc).

There's not much in the way of function Apple can add to the TV that's not already covered by iTV. It's clear Apple is NOT interested in connecting to cable/satellite or offering a PVR solution.