The Wall Street Journal:
Investor Carl Icahn said he expects Apple Inc. to introduce an ultra-high-definition television in 2016. But after nearly a decade of research, Apple quietly shelved plans to make such a set more than a year ago, according to people familiar with the matter.
Apple had searched for breakthrough features to justify building an Apple-branded television set, those people said. In addition to an ultra-high-definition display, Apple considered adding sensor-equipped cameras so viewers could make video calls through the set, they said.
Ultimately, though, Apple executives didn’t consider any of those features compelling enough to enter the highly competitive television market, led by Samsung Electronics Co.
It’s been an open secret for years that Apple has tested many variations of television sets but just couldn’t find a way to include features compelling enough to bring it to market. Regardless of what Icahn wants or believes, Apple will do what’s right for Apple. And, as many of us have argued for many years, an Apple-branded television set isn’t going to happen.
It’s a shame that “making a TV set that just works” is under the bar for Apple to make a TV and actually be profitable at it. My mom recently got a new Samsung TV and she just hates it. The remote control is overloaded, and you can’t just turn it on and watch TV. You have to do a crazy dance of selecting different things and going in and out of various menus.
It reminds me of how, when going over to the house of a friend/significant other/etc. you can’t just sit down on the couch and turn on the TV while you’re waiting if they’re not quite ready. First you have to figure out which one or more of the three remotes on the coffee table to use, then what order to use them in, then which buttons or push, in which order.
Of course nowadays we all know what to do in this situation: Pull out your phone instead! You’d think the TV networks would catch on about this and try to push back against the TV manufacturers so that it’s easier again for just anyone to turn on the TV.
We encounter the same difficulties in hotel rooms: way more complication than the end result merits.
Too many of our most-commoditized tech devices are made by companies who have neither conception of nor interest in how these things are actually used.
The 3 remotes problem is not a TV issue, it’s due to the fact that the TV, set top box and speaker system are all different. You can mitigate the problem with a universal remote like a Harmony (which is what I have), however, even then there’s still a learning curve.
What you state is exactly a TV issue. All of those things should be talking to each other and there should be one small remote to access them. Using Apple TV with the iPhone remote app gives a very small taste of what it could be like, but it looks like we won’t see a whole system. None of these manufacturers are daring enough to strip down their components to one button. Apple certainly is, but unfortunately it looks like they have no interest in it.
It does get even more complicated than having a separate TV remote, set top box remote and speaker remote though. Even with the speaker or sound bar remote, I have to select between aux1 for the set top box, aux2 for the TV itself and bluetooth for connection to my iPhone or iPad.
Some sort of auto sensing function maybe?
Maybe if we all keep spitballing we will come up with the solution.
It often seems like there is more effort being put in to solving these problems with discussions like these, than there is at the manufacturers of these devices.
it’s not really an open secret — nobody outside of apple knows whether this is true. we can suspect, but that doesnt make it an open secret.
its still the industry’s problem. they could work to adopt a better, shared solution.
I suspect that Apple’s solution to this will be ” Buy a great TV with an awesome display and drive it with Apple TV.” If, as is expected, ATV is revised in June at WWDC, especially with apps and actual TV services that becomes quite reasonable. Hell, it’s reasonable today for the most part, it’s just that you can’t stream live TV for a wide variety of sources.
Really? The small taste of how it all can work together doesn’t even allow you to change the volume (something even a $2 universal remote will allow you to do).
Agreed. Adding a set top box such as Apple TV does not eliminate the interaction with TV’s interface. And having to switch input to use Apple TV adds to frustration.
And I suspect that eventually, most people will find “smarts” in smart TV to be good enough not to bother adding a set top box.
I just meant the interface and simple control. It’s quite obvious by now that Apple is genius at distilling down complexity. There’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t be able to do it with a TV. It’s too bad it hasn’t happened yet.
The problem with “smart” TVs is that they applied the word “smart” to the wrong part: The insides, rather than the controls.