Replies

I love the way that fanbois breathlessly pronounce terms like "retina" as if it has any quantitative meaning beyond actual screen resolutions. A quick search on newegg.com will give you several monitors with the same resolution as a retina display at a much larger size (27"+) for hundreds of dollars less than the $1000 mentioned in a previous post. But that's neither here nor there.

First, Apple will no more waste time on 2560 x 1440 TVs than they would waste time on an IPhone with no screen. There's NO broadcast or cable signal source that can push that many pixels. Most "HD" TV is broadcast in 720p in the first place, with only a few specialty channels and sporting events ever actually in 1080p. Even Bluray is capped at 1080p. You would have to be a moron of epic proportions to by a TV for thousands of extra dollars with a resolution twice what your signal actually provides.

Nope... Apple will sell 1080p TVs for twice or three times normal cost, with the up-sale based on control features (think TV + Siri) or content addons (AppleTV builtin, plus subscriber agreements, etc.). And fanbois (and the "trendy" technologically illiterates) will lap it up...

If this is just a AppleTV puck built in, it is utterly doomed to failure. If it's instead like the Microsoft technology on display for the last three years at Disneyland, it's sure got a chance of taking off. I was thinking about this post while watching a demonstration of video calling with an HDTV, of a TV defaulting to lovely artwork rather than sitting there like a black hole when not being used. A notepad in the corner of the screen noting the fictional owner of the house on display had to leave in twenty minutes due to traffic to reach the 8pm movie.

It's funny that I had forgotten such an old display at the park, with it's touch screen and obvious integration of multiple technologies. The funny thing was that I was mildly proud of my cheap TV which streams Netflix and the like wirelessly, and ignoring that it was effectively just a computer with a really big screen.

Well, if Apple delivers, kudos for them to bring the technology to home first.

Why the personal attacks? So unbecoming of a Freeper. People resort to attacks when their arguments have no substance. First of all, I'm not a "fanbois". I have worked on many computers since the mid-60s, mainframes, minis and micros. I own many different brands of machines. I just say it the way facts present themselves.

Secondly, we don't know exactly what TV monitor that Apple will announce. But we do know they will firstly sell in the Apple Store alongside their other devices. So would Apple waste time on a high-resolution TV monitor? I certainly would hope so, in order to support the resolution of their devices. And does newegg.com sell HD TV monitors with retina resolution and internet capabilities for $500? I don't think so. That was the question which you avoid and give twisted responses, just like Obama. Having a resolution higher than normal HD TVs results in additional capabilities like banners, split-screens and other information without losing TV image quality that is also displayed. Will Apple incorporate such additional features? Unknown. But it is likely to become standard in the near future.

So drop your name-calling, as you are a moron to think the resolution that is standard now, won't be upped in the near future. Standards change continually. The only thing certain, is that the price will be high. You get what you pay for. If you don't want it, don't buy it, settle for less. I did that for some of my computers, like buying a Samsung HD TV monitor for $200 for a Mac Mini Server, even though the Mini resolution is higher than HD. It suited my needs. Other PCs have higher resolution monitors, for Photoshop and video-editing work that I do. Wait until the product comes out, evaluate your needs, then discuss it on what it won't do for you at a price you're willing to pay. And discuss it intelligently.