Well in it's current state it does everything you want with a bit of gentle hacking?
Give it a month, then buy.
Again your vision is excellent. However, Apple is far from that vision right now. Because they lack a lot of content availability, the "on demand" piece fails unless a person is happy with the limited offerings that are available now.
<snip>
Give people what they want, and people will buy a lot of what you're selling. Give people what you want them to want, and people may buy a lot if you guessed their needs exactly right, but will probably buy less since you're not hitting their target. Guess wrong and wait for buyers to come around to the company way of thinking and you generally end up with very slow market penetration. Which of these seems the closest match toTV "as is"?
They are about to launch more HD Movies some from Disney!
). ...Actually hockey is moving more and more to PPV so it may happen sooner than later! 
However, I now find it constraining. I can't take my TV shows with me... anywhere... on the plane, on my iPhone, over to my girlfriends place, etc.
The device is so locked down it makes an AppleTV look as open as 7-Eleven. If you want HDTV, you have no choice but to buy the cable company box.
TVs. If they don't sell many TVs, there isn't a lot of natural pressure on the content producers to do deals with Apple in support of the vision. Until TV is dominating like iPods dominate music, the equivalent revolution cannot be realized. TV. There is enough product development nuggets in threads and critical reviews to effectively map out several next-generation TV platforms. By building what mass market BUYERS want to buy, Apple can sell a lot more TVs, which then strengthens their momentum toward the vision.TV with DVR and/or Blue Ray doesn't kill the vision. Either and both will apparently give a whole lot more people reason to buy TV. With deep penetration will come ever-greater leverage in working deals with content producers, making content pricing from iTunes much more appealing and getting much more desirable content into the iTunes store. HDTV and be limited to only iTunes handicapped 720p programming (at best) to show it off. Thus, cable/antenna feeds video (not on demand) that delivers a better quality picture now. And BD delivers a maximum quality picture for mainstream TV products.TV is NOT a solution at all for these people.TV and that money can be spent on an Apple product (with a bunch of other great features) instead of a BD player. And by getting more penetration into living rooms, content producers will be increasingly enticed to make 1080i and even 1080p content available via iTunes (current US broadband bandwith issues set aside). As such content is added at attractive pricing, it will sell/be rented via iTunes.TV owners will see they can then buy or rent BD equivalent movies via iTunes. They'll be able to choose whether they want to continue buying old technology (discs) or "vision" technology (itunes files). And again, with ever-growing penetration of TV, Apple can negotiate better and better deals such that the latter could be meaningfully less expensive than buying the BD disc. Naturally, the public can get comfortable with buying the digital file instead of paying more for the BD disc, and demand for BD can fade away.TV that has a DVR function that might be completely- or mostly unused, and a BD player that might be completely- or mostly unused, but guess where we are then: the vision is realized.
TV don't like that we use the TV mainly to watch BluRay discs.TV, I find OK 720p or 1080i.
I don't see 720p as handicapped.
Handicapped: Seeing YouTube videos on a 40" HDTV via
TVs version of 720p is not even full on 720p. In other words, it would be reasonably fair- IMO- to call it barely- or partially- HD. Technically, it is HD (and certainly better than SD), but the bandwith is really pinched (by Apple's design) which means other sources of 720p could be a lot better than the best of what we get out of TV 720p.TVs version of 720p and observe what a "great" job is does with even slowly panning the camera (hint: stutter, stutter, stutter). Why? That's the handicapped part.I completely agree that Apple would prefer that people buy their HD content from iTunes. However, people interested in showing maximum quality content on their 1080i or 1080p content can choose between anThe BluRay will be a feature that will allow users to see BluRay discs, and
TV, which will be able to deliver handicapped 720p at best OR a BD player which can deliver 1080p. If a next-gen TV had a BD player option, the buyer could choose one box to cover both bases- and end up with so much more than just a BD player. I have an
TV myself, so I appreciate many of the same things about it. IT IS GREAT in many ways "as is". My beef is that with just a little effort to give BUYERS what they want to buy, Apple could sell a whole lot more of them. And with much greater (ipod like) penetration, all the rest will logically fall into place. 
While I appreciate the sentiment, I wholly disagree with this argument. Apple is a BIG company (hopefully) not depending on some tiny little group of key people who can only manage ONE thing at a time. Apple has the cash resources to easily hire some additional talent to build in features as simple as those described as popular
TV features desired in a next gen version. If hard drive manufacturers can engineer these little boxes with additional features we want in the TV, I'm pretty sure just a few of the capable talents at Apple could be dedicated to at least matching some of what those hard drive companies are doing. Sure WD, etc can't approximate the Apple UI, and sure we ALL know that Apple can do it much better, it's just a matter of wishing that Apple had the will to do it much better NOW. I have great confidence that Apple is not a focus-all-resources-on-one-thing-at-a-time company. However, if I find out that's not true, I'll be quick to sell all my Apple stock.Again, this is chicken vs. egg... and no excuse for Apple to be slow in rolling out a next gen
TV with more market-driven features. It's not the lack of available content in iTunes right now that is holding up broad adoption of TV; iTunes has a great deal of available content (does any other comparable source have more???).TV with some additional BUYER-desired functionality so that it wins massive adoption, and the content creators will be the ones deactivating those mines. You'd be surprised how quick big profit motivators help get very difficult business arrangements worked out. All those content providers want to make as much as they possibly can from all of their content. Give them various new (secure) ways with a lot of realistic potential for profit, and they'll jump all over each other to work a deal.Agree on the admirable job. Relative to distribution rights, give them another (secure) way to deliver 1080p that costs less than packaging their content in physical media and giving a cut to retailers, if they sell it near the same price as BD, they make a lot more profit. Even if they cut the price by- say- half of the money that would otherwise go to retailers, they still make fatter margins, while the lower price might drive some additional volume.
I have tremendous hope that a major application of the tablet will not be either the new, replacement
TV or an ultimate fancy remote. If the former, I can't grasp how it makes sense to have a device keying on portability also be a device that needs constant connection to the home entertainment system (for all but single people living alone). If the latter, we're talking about an $800??? (think about Apple pricing) remote control needed to be left in the living room to control the base station, which again kills the portability if the buyer lives with other people- NOT to mention what happens when someone drops or sits on the iTablet remote.TV, then it would seem to come with enormous classic functionality sacrifices for anyone other than the single person living alone. TV, I don't see a iTablet being one either. Instead, I see the tablet and the next-gen TV as two pretty separate products, overlapping with certain optional functionality in the tablet. TV tablet super device since they finished up that original iPhone. Obviously, I'm pretty hot for a next-gen TV (not so much for this tablet device- even considering some of the wildest speculations of how it might work).
tv, itself. I've recently seen some off-brands for $99 on sale at Best Buy so Apple could possibly add it in to the current 160GB unit for $299 and still make a nice profit, though it would need a taller case to hold the drive mechanism. )
TV. I don't believe any of the chicken vs. egg (wait on broadband expansion, wait on iTunes to get more content, wait on content deal misery to work itself out (how exactly?), wait on...), when, in fact, Apple says their #1 business is selling HARDWARE. If they deliver a next-gen TV (hardware) that has some mainstream features that people say they want (before they buy one), they will sell more. And by developing an TV with enough mainstream features (or even add-on options), they seem best suited to dominate this space. Dominate the space and the content providers will make the deals, experiment with 1080i/1080p download, find that it can be as profitable as packaging them on plastic discs and giving a big cut to retailers, and...TV being soooo within Apple's reach, how I soooo wish they would seize the opportunity, and how I know they can do it by seeing elements of it done at many other (less capable) companies. I love the TV I have now, but I also recognize very obvious shortcomings that are easily rectified with a hardware refresh. TV that will hopefully have a few other features they seek before they'll buy one. So the frustration is in knowing that Apple could dominate this space if it only had the will, and wondering why they choose to NOT get this money (so within their reach).
TV could playback ALL HD formats doesn't mean that all iTunes content would automatically become ONLY 1080p bandwith-hogging files. Those people with slower connections could simply download the 720p or SD versions instead of the 1080i or 1080p version.TV. One of my biggest peeves is shooting precious home movies with a 1080p camcorder, having the computer and software tools from Apple to render it at the full resolution I captured it, but not being able to play it back at full resolution on the TV via TV. The difference in what TV can display and what I see with a direct connection of the camcorder is strikingly obvious. Very simply, the weakest link in the Apple chain is the handicapped hardware within the current TV. Unlike broadband infrastructure, content creators fears of Apple/iTunes, etc, that particular issue is COMPLETELY within Apple's power to rectify. Apparently, I'm not the only ready buyer of a next-gen TV that includes a few features that we know could be there. So how about it Apple?
I think it is merely a factor of will. I don't believe a company as big as Apple lacks the resources to deliver a next-gen
TV have enough openness that others (like Elgato for example) can fulfill those needs? TVs because there is a way for it to cover many of the various mainstream wishes shared by BUYERS. And by getting a lot more TVs into homes, Apples preferred distribution model would be able to gain strength too. People like you & I who could care less about a BD or cable card option- could enjoy a next-gen TV that fulfills some missing features fully compatible with Apple's preferred distribution model. And BUYERS on the sidelines- apparently there are many of them- would have little reason to delay their buying decision.
