[deanmv]

Needs to be here if this comes true!

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2011/10/hints-o...biography/

No set-top boxes, no ATV, no HTPC, just hack your TV and install, it would be the things of dreams! haha

[Starstream]

Not outside the realms of possibility as Smart/Internet TV's already have decent Arm SoC's running them.

But the TV makers have been locking down the TV's more and more blocking hackers and you would probably have to have a generous supply of TV's to hand over to the XBMC team for development : )

There was actually a company that had XBMC built into the TV but it was boutique 3D TV that costs a fortune.

I hope Apple do release a TV one day as the UI's built into TV's are freakin awful.

[GreenEyez]

Have fun paying 2000$ for a new TV once every 2 years when some new fancy-pancy format appears (like the recent 3D MVC codec).

An ATV2 is cheap, 99$, it`s replaceable once every 2 years.
An HTPC usually needs a GPU upgrade to decode new video formats or to bitstream new types of audio codecs, typically 50$ for a entry level GPU.

[Ned Scott]

Have fun paying 2000$ for a new TV once every 2 years when some new fancy-pancy format appears (like the recent 3D MVC codec).

An ATV2 is cheap, 99$, it`s replaceable once every 2 years.
An HTPC usually needs a GPU upgrade to decode new video formats or to bitstream new types of audio codecs, typically 50$ for a entry level GPU.

Common consumer codecs have been stable for a few years. The only new stuff is 3D, and if your TV doesn't support that then there would be no need for a hardware decoder chip for it (plus 3D is a fad). It would not be strange to have a smart TV that didn't need to be replaced (could do bit for bit bluray quality) for 5 or more years.

No GPUs on the market or in planning have hardware decoding support for anything drastically new. Notice Google is still waiting for WebM support in hardware.

It's a lot more stable and a lot less cutting-edge-must-replace-right-away for video formats these days than in the past.

[krish_2k4]

it will just be like any other apples product, you will find a better tv and cheaper. your just paying for the brand.

[Ned Scott]

it will just be like any other apples product, you will find a better tv and cheaper. your just paying for the brand.

No. I'm not saying Macs are better or that they're even a good value, but please none of this "you're just paying for the brand" bullshit.

Case in point: when the iPad first came out everyone thought $500 was too much because you could get a netbook for $300. Then everyone else's tablet came out, and some of them were much more expensive and did far less.

Another example is the Apple TV 2. For $100 you get a tiny 3inch by 3inch black puck with a built in power supply, IR sensor, bluetooth, HDMI 720 output, a decent ARM processor, a GPU with Open GLES 2.0 support, wireless-n and ethernet, the ability to learn any remote's IR signal, and iOS which has a huge "homebrew"/jailbreak/hacking scene and software support. You'd be hard pressed to find such a nice ARM package for cheaper.

It has become the cheapest way to buy something new and have XBMC running on it.

The iMac isn't a bad deal when you consider the screen that comes with it and that a lot of people actually want all-in-one computers. I'd argue the laptops are fairly priced as well, though they certainly are not the cheapest you can get in their class. Ever since Apple updated their entire line to using Intel Core-i processors from the core2duals, they've been a much better deal. About the only one that I would say to avoid is the Mac Pro.