Apple’s flirtatious “will it or won’t it” trope about making a fully-fledged television for the living room has been played to death. And yet, on top of a new report, one aspect makes me think now is the right time for the Cupertino company to go for it finally.
The Obvious Reasons People Want an Apple Television
It’s hard to even talk about a new Apple-designed TV because the company already has its Apple TV 4K streaming box. It has a streaming service that it creates content for with Apple TV+. Plus, it has an Apple TV app that it puts on its phones, tablets, and third-party televisions.
Apple is sufficiently in the “TV” business, so it seems obvious that the company should eventually just make a proper 65- or 75-inch screen for people’s living rooms. It has tvOS to power such a device.
A recent report from Bloomberg also pegs the company with releasing a new iPad-like home hub. Using a TV set as a visual interface for connected home devices seems straightforward. Samsung does it with its TVs. Amazon kind of does it with its new 21-inch Echo Show—which acts like a TV and streams shows.
Apple even makes 27- and 32-inch monitors. There are differences between computer monitors and TVs, but not many.
The Real Reason Apple Should Make a Television
The latest OLED, mini-LED, and 8K TVs are spectacular. The specs of the high-end models are mind-blowing. But the area of televisions that I think is actually worth competing in is the more casual Art TV space. Samsung invented the category with its Frame TV, and until very recently, no one has challenged it. TCL and Hisense are making a run at it currently.
I wrote earlier this year about how Samsung’s Frame TVs are hard to recommend, but I love mine anyway. The actual panel is old and blotchy with uneven light, but since it’s off half the time with a photo or piece of art showing, it’s a device I like having in my house.
This is Apple’s opportunity to get into the TV set game with its nano-textured technology. A feature it is increasingly adding to more products in its lineup. First, it was an option for the Pro Display XDR, then the Studio Display. Then, nano-texture came to the iPad Pro. Now, it’s on the latest MacBook Pros. Will the glare-reducing technology make it to MacBook Air in early 2025? It seems like a solid bet.
I traded in an LG OLED for a Samsung Frame TV because my living room gets too much sun, and the LG TV was a mirror most of the time. It didn’t matter if it looked better since I couldn’t see it most of the time.
Apple doing a television set that has a high-quality display with the option to add matte-like nano-texture to it would instantly give Samsung a run for its money. Anti-glare technology that doesn’t wash out colors and limit viewing angles is a very practical feature that I wish more companies would focus on. That’s exactly what Apple is doing, too. In its own words: “Typical matte displays have a coating added to their surface that scatters light…Etched into the glass at the nanometer level, the nano-texture scatters light to further minimize glare—for outstanding image quality even in challenging lighting conditions.”
It seems like Apple is slowly building toward adding the anti-glare nano-texture to all of its screen devices—or at least most of them. It also appears to be tweaking the etching process for devices people touch versus ones they don’t, although that’s not clear. Most importantly, Apple is continuing to improve the processes for making anti-glare screens.
The matte-like finish is primarily what gives the newest Samsung Frame TVs their convincing ‘framed paintings’ looks. It’s the defining feature when the TV is on and off. If Apple can match or beat what Samsung is doing there while also improving how TV shows and movies look, I think a lot of people would be interested in that.
Don’t Hold Your Breath For an Apple Television
Despite having all the pieces of the puzzle in place, from screen technology to software, Apple probably won’t ever make a living room TV. It says no more than it says yes. The traditional margins on TVs seemingly aren’t high enough to justify the company getting into that business.
Now, if it ever figures out how to earn a 30% profit on a sold TV, then all bets are off. Maybe it could make enough volume to reduce material costs. Who knows? I just hope if the time ever comes that the company doesn’t give it a name that has “Apple TV” in it because those products are confusing enough to discuss already.
