Michal Ždanský When Steve Jobs mentioned in his biography that he had finally cracked how to make the perfect television, an intense marathon of rumors began about what such a television from Apple, nicknamed "iTV", should actually look like in order to be truly revolutionary. But perhaps the answer is simpler than it seems.
Repetition is the mother of revolution
Let's first summarize what would make sense for such a television and what we already know. A list of things that should not be missing from an Apple TV:
• iOS as an operating system
• Siri as one of the control elements
• Revolutionary remote control
• Simple user interface
• Touch control
• App Store with third-party applications
• Connection with existing services (iCloud, iTunes Store...)
• Everything else from Apple TV
Now let's try to think about how Apple proceeds with new products. Consider, for example, the first iPhone and its operating system. When the phone was created, its software core was supposed to be Linux, probably with some custom graphics. However, this idea was swept off the table and the Mac OS X kernel was used instead. After all, Apple already had an excellent system, so it would be unreasonable not to use it in a way for a phone that was supposed to cause a revolution in the field of mobile technology.
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPad in 2010, it ran the same system as the previous successful product. Apple could have created a stripped down version of OS X and put it on the tablet. Instead, however, he chose the path of iOS, the simple and intuitive operating system that Scott Forstall's team used to help the company to the top.
It was the summer of 2011, when the new operating system OS X Lion was introduced, which proclaimed the slogan "Back to Mac", or we will bring what helped the success of iPhones and iPads to the Mac. In this way, many elements from iOS, from a system that was originally developed for the mobile phone, got into the strictly desktop system. Mountain Lion cheerfully continues the established trend and slowly we can be sure that sooner or later the unification of both systems will happen.
But that's not the point now. When we think about these practices, the result is only one thing - Apple recycles its successful ideas and uses them in new products. So it is easy that the same procedure will be followed by the legendary iTV. Let's look at the list above again. Let's go over the first six points again. In addition to television, they have one common namesake. Where can we find iOS, Siri, simple UI, touch control, App Store, cloud services and what fits in the hand as a controller?
When I read some of the predictions that various websites and magazines have come up with, I noticed how most of them only focus on what we will see on screen. There was talk of some kind of iOS with a graphical interface that would fit exactly with the TV. But wait, isn't there already something similar on Apple TV? In it, we find a modified version of iOS for use as a TV accessory. So this is the way television will go. Anyone who has tried to control Apple TV with the included controller will tell me that it is not.
Innovation at your fingertips
The revolution will not be in what we see on the screen, but rather in the device that will take care of interacting with it. Forget the Apple Remote. Think of a revolutionary remote control like no other. Think of a controller that combines all of Apple's know-how, on which it builds its success. Thinking about… iPhone?
Put all the controls from TVs, DVD players and set top boxes next to each other, just like Steve Jobs did with the smartphones of the time in 2007 when he introduced the revolutionary iPhone. Where is the problem? He is not only hidden in the lower half of the controllers, but all over their surface. Buttons that are there whether you need them or not. They are fixed in the plastic body and are unchangeable, no matter what you need to do with the device. It doesn't work because the buttons and controls can't be changed. So how do we solve this? We're just going to get rid of all those little things and make a giant screen. Doesn't that remind you of something?
Yes, that's exactly how Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone. And as it turns out, he was right. The large touch screen has become a hit. If you look at the current smartphone market, you will hardly come across buttons. But the problem with TV controls is actually even bigger. The average controller has around 30-50 different buttons that have to fit somewhere. Therefore, the controls are long and unergonomic, as it is not possible to reach all the buttons from one position. Moreover, we will often use only a small part of them.
Let's take for example a common situation, the series on the current channel has ended and we want to see what they are showing elsewhere. But extracting an overview of all running programs from the set top box is not exactly the fastest, and scrolling through a kilometer-long list with the arrows, if you have a cable card, no, thank you. But what if you could choose a program as conveniently as you choose a song on your iPhone? With a swipe of your finger, you can go through the list of stations, you will see the currently broadcast program for each one, that's user friendliness after all, isn't it?
So what does that revolutionary controller look like? I think it's like an iPod touch. Thin metal body with a giant display. But can 3,5" be considered a giant size today? Even before the introduction of the iPhone 4S, there were rumors that the upcoming generation of the phone would have a larger display, around 3,8-4,0”. I believe that such an iPhone will eventually come, and together with it the controller for "iTV", which will have the same diagonal.
Now we have an ergonomic controller with a touchpad that can adapt as needed, as it only has the most necessary hardware buttons. A controller that does not need batteries, as it is recharged from the mains just like other iOS products. So how will the interaction between the TV and the remote control work?
Everything is in the software
I see that revolution in the fact that the critical part of the user environment will not be on the TV screen, but on the controller itself. Apple has sold tens of millions of iOS devices. Today, the vast majority of people, at least somewhat tech-savvy, can operate an iPhone or iPad. So there is a mass of people who have learned to control the operating system. It would be foolish of Apple not to bring the exact same control into the living room. But somehow it doesn't work on TV. After all, you won't be reaching for the screen, you'll be reaching for the controller. Of course, it would be possible to turn the controller into a kind of touchpad, but the interpretation of the controls would not be 100%. Therefore, there is only one option - the user interface directly on the controller screen.
To simplify, imagine an iPod touch that communicates with the TV via AirPlay. Each group of functions will be presented by an application, just like the iPhone. We will have an app for Live Broadcast, Music (iTunes Match, Home Sharing, Radio), Video, iTunes Store, Internet Videos, and of course there will be third-party apps.
Let's imagine, for example, a TV application. This could be similar to broadcast overview applications. List of channels with the current program, viewing of recorded programs, broadcast calendar... All you have to do is select a station in the list, the TV will switch the channel and a new list of options will appear on the controller: Overview of current and upcoming broadcasts on the given channel, option to record the program, display details of the current a program that you can also display on TV, Live Pause, when you can pause the broadcast for a while and start it again later, just like the radio on iPod nano, change the language for audio or subtitles...
Other applications would be similarly affected. At the same time, the TV would not mirror the controller. You don't need to see all the controls on the screen, you just want to have the running show there. The image on the controller and on the screen will thus be indirectly dependent on each other. You will only see what you really want to see on the TV, everything else will be displayed on the controller display.
Third-party applications will be similarly affected. Let's take a game for example. After launch, you will see a splash screen with animations or other information on your TV. However, you'll navigate the menu on the controller - set the difficulty, load a save game, and play. After loading, the controller's UI will change - it will turn into a virtual gamepad and will use all the advantages that this modified iPod touch offers - gyroscope and multitouch. Tired of the game? Press the Home button to return to the home screen.
The remote control of the iPod touch makes sense in several aspects - for example, when entering any text. The TV will certainly also have a browser (Safari), where at least search words must be entered. In the same way, you cannot do without inserting text in the YouTube application. Have you ever tried entering letters with a directional pad? Trust me, it's hell. In contrast, a virtual keyboard is an ideal solution.
And then, of course, there's Siri. After all, there is nothing easier than telling this digital assistance "Play me the next episode of Doctor House". Siri will automatically find out when and on which channel the series is broadcast and set the recording. Apple certainly won't rely on the TV's built-in microphone. Instead, it will be part of the controller, just like on the iPhone 4S you hold down the home button and just say the command.
What about other devices? If the controller and TV run iOS, it would be possible to control the "iTV" with an iPhone or iPad. With Apple TV, the control was solved by a separate application in the App Store, which fully replaced the functionality of the remote control. However, Apple could go further and implement the remote control interface directly into the iOS core, as the app itself might not be enough. You could then switch to the partial control environment, for example, from the multitasking bar. And how would the iDevice communicate with the television? Probably the same as the included controller, via Wi-Fi or economical Bluetooth 4.0. IRC is a relic after all.
Hardware view of the driver
A controller shaped like an iPod touch could bring other benefits in addition to a touch screen and a great user experience. The first is the absence of a battery. Like other iOS products, it would be equipped with a built-in battery. Although its durability would be less than that of a classic control, you would not have to deal with replacing the batteries, it would be enough just to connect the controller to the network with a cable. In the same way, Apple could introduce some kind of elegant dock in which the remote control would be stored and thus recharged.
What else can we find on the surface of the iPod touch? A volume rocker that could control the volume of the TV, why not. But the 3,5 mm jack is more interesting. Imagine a situation where you still want to watch a movie at night, but you don't want to disturb your roommate or sleeping partner. What are you going to do? You connect your headphones to the audio output, the TV starts streaming sound wirelessly after connection.
The built-in front camera would probably not be of much use, for video calls via FaceTime, the webcam built into the TV would be more useful.
Does Apple need its own TV?
I ask myself this question. Almost everything mentioned above could be provided by the new generation of Apple TV. Sure, such a TV could bring a lot of extra features - a built-in Blu-ray player (if at all), 2.1 speakers similar to a Thunderbolt display, unified control for other connected devices (third-party manufacturers could have their own apps for the devices), a custom form of Kinect and more. In addition, there is a rumor that LG has created a new generation screen with amazing features, but cannot use it because Apple has paid exclusivity for it. In addition, Apple would have many times the margins for the TV than the current $XNUMX TV accessories.
However, the television market is currently not in a state of flux. For most big players, it is rather unprofitable, moreover, one does not change the TV every two or three years, unlike phones, tablets or laptops (with laptops, however, it is a very individual matter). After all, wouldn't it be easier for Apple to leave the TV market to Samsung, LG, Sharp and others and continue to make only Apple TV? I believe that they have thought this question through in Cupertino very well and if they really enter the television business, they will know why.
However, looking for an answer is not the purpose of this article. I'm sure there's an intersection between the speculated "iTV" and the iOS synergy we're already familiar with. The analogy I arrive at is based partly on experience, partly on history and partly on logical reasoning. I do not dare to claim that I have really cracked the secret of revolutionary television, but I believe that a similar concept could really work within Apple.
And how does it all make sense to you, the readers? Do you think such a concept could work, or is it complete nonsense and the product of a sick editor's mind?
I must say that after a long time I am reading a very good quality article here. The things described in the article make sense. We'll see. Unfortunately, it will only be partially usable in our region. I also think of the iCloud synergy for recording :-)
I'll just add to this vindictive article: Apple revived the phone market or created the touch smartphone market, created the tablet market, revived or created the ultra-thin notebook market, revived the music market... So why not revive the stagnant television market?
It looks interesting, but the Apple TV was never intended for regular broadcasting. However, some ideas are really cool and interesting. On the other hand, I can't imagine that I will be charging other devices like the aforementioned iOvladáč apart from the iPhone, MBA and soon perhaps the iPad 3. From this point of view, it would be interesting to build the dock into the body of the television, where the entire downloader can be hidden when it is not needed. It is also important what size this TV was and at what price it will be sold. I accept the exclusivity of Apple and I'm happy to pay extra for their products, but a TV for a price higher than the iMac 27" is pointless to me, because I'd rather have this PC instead of a TV. We'll see and I'm curious about the new ATV because it will still be one of Steve Jobs' ideas!
Hello, very nicely written and I hope it will be like that in the end.
Bravo, great article :).
Really good article. Thanks.
I agree with my colleague, a really perfectly crafted article for the last couple of months. And this idea of iTV is really very interesting (I think I would pay for something similar) :-) I praise the author, very well done!
Great thinking Michal and a very interesting read. The concept of another iOS device in the hand - the drivers did not occur to me. This is where I'm not sure I'd want to get another one (I have 2 iPhones and I'm planning an iPad). On the other hand, I believe that Apple can make the "controller" so interesting that there will be "something" in it to buy it (with an iTV(?), whatever it looks like. The ideal situation for me would be to use the existing one as a controller an iPhone 4 and up. But we know Apple, and if they can make money on another device, they'll no doubt do so and give it feature(s) that aren't available anywhere else. Usually a few tens of dollars more than we'd like.
Regarding the iTV concept...: I wonder if Apple will actually offer a TV in the form of a display. If the reasoning should go in this direction, one will inevitably come across the correct size of the diagonal, which is different for different customers. Sure, they can make some 110-130cm display, with which they may hit fo general taste. Then I can imagine that the price will be "nice" if it is to be a high-quality 120cm (+/-) display, additionally loaded with Apple iOS. Will such a TV include a TV tuner? For me, she should. Apple would thus relegate Elgato with their excellent EyeTV software to the back burner (unless it already quietly cooperates with them).
It is a fact that the display on the iMac (1st Intel), which we use as a home multimedia device (Elgato EyeTV - TV with remote programming recording, iTunes - music, radio, iPhoto - photos, Safari - Internet, etc.) is slowly dying out at home, and the fact is that I wanted to solve it with a new Mac mini and a 120 cm television. I wonder if Apple will fix it and if it will be already March 7th. Television is interesting to me in its current form, only a few programs, which I almost never watch at the time they are broadcast. I'm not too interested in buying/renting movies, it eats up a lot of time.
My idea of an ideal solution is: a new "box" (iTV/Apple TV), after which I connect my TV (any size) controlled by an existing iOS device, or a new "controller" if it is to include the new Bluetooth). The question is whether Apple will tolerate a logo other than its own on the display of the given television ;-)
I'm curious about next Wednesday.
Although everything is logical and it would certainly look nice, I have to say that as far as the controller for such a device as a television is concerned, the absence of HW buttons will have a disadvantage, after all, blindly pressing the touch screen is not quite the same. And to unlock the "controller" for each switch I don't know I don't know.
Although I have to say myself that I would like such a connection and would definitely go for it ;-)
Very mature reasoning. I didn't think of that. On the other hand, I now use the iPhone to control the TV and multimedia center, and I don't lug the controls around.
The question is whether a screen from Apple is necessary. Were they able to offer a wide range of sizes? I own a 3 cm 102D LED and very quickly after the purchase I found out that due to the high quality of the image I would need at least 150 cm. But everyone is comfortable with something different.
I don't want to nitpick, but... What should be the main thing about television, if we leave out the consumer category? Display quality. Of course. This is what the television is intended for, just as it is clear what the hi-fi equipment is intended for. Since, in my opinion, Apple will use LCD technology for 90% of the time and not plasma technology, it is clear that it will not be a high-end display. Although the latest models of LCD TVs are still "better", they simply lose to plasma technology in display quality, especially in terms of color rendering and naturalness. Sure, it's nice to have iTunes integrated into the TV with the ability to stream, which already works today thanks to Apple TV, but simply nothing compares to the Bluray-plasma combination these days. If I base it on what Apple equips its products with, i.e. mostly mainstream (graphics cards, HDD, monitors in Mac Book), then I expect a completely ordinary television of the consumer category in terms of display, i.e. a pleasant Disney color, but of course top-quality processing with simple controls at an unrealistic price. My guess is as far as the diagonals are concerned: 106 for 35.000,- , 127 for 55.000, and I think that is still very naively down to earth, at the same time we will buy a really high-quality plasma 127, e.g. Panasonic today for a ridiculous 25.000,- with a picture that is better than with top LCD models at several times the price.
Maybe it is, but the reason why Cook recommended that people buy Apple TV while there is still time. Because it is possible that after 7.3. there will no longer be a boxed Apple TV... I personally hope for a boxed TV with a monitor/TV cheaper solution.
In my opinion, this is how Apple thinks, or I don't think it will sell a TV with a loaded OS ala SmartTV from Samsung. Everyone expects that Apple will introduce something like this, but I rather think that it will go about it in a different way, for example, as described in the article. So far, Apple has always been able to find a different path than the mainstream in the industry, and I expect it will be no different here. Btw. for example, has anyone thought about how Apple would cram 106″ – 127″ TVs into their existing AppleStores? After all, he would practically not be able to offer them this way.
I think this is quite realistic. I don't expect the price to be unreasonably high. I rather expect it to start at $999 for the smallest iTV, say 40". Even with the iPad, a high price was expected (999 USD) and in the end it started at 499 USD.
Is there any closer information on what LG has come up with for the new generation of screens?
The controller could be sold separately, and for owners of an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, an application would be enough and a physical controller would not be needed.
I commend the author for the article! After a long time, something that is worth reading twice and, above all, is not a repetition of information that can be read anywhere
A beautiful thought. The only thing that doesn't suit me: Apple could only make a "box" in this case. In this scenario, Apple wouldn't need a screen at all, and I think it would be more advantageous for it. And as for the controller, why would people have to buy it? It would be part of the package :-) but really great article. I can totally imagine a preview-style list of stations in the iTunes store, where I would see which program is running (play icon) while scrolling through the other stations :-)
good article except for the touch screen :D that's a lot of nonsense (if you don't want a diagonal of 3m), control could be solved via iDevice or the already mentioned revolutionary controller...
I have to join the others, I haven't been so excited by an article in a long time. Otherwise, I can imagine what you write and I would like such a device, but I can't imagine very well what the price would be. In order for this device to be competitive, it would have to cost around 20-25 thousand. That's why apple tv in its current form makes more sense to me.
Anyway, I like to be surprised and I like to be wrong. :-)
I wish this was true ;)
HUPS: it turns out that the Reply button isn't working… It was a reply to user 'dfx''s comment about prices.
An interesting thought, I've been dreaming about such control of home appliances for a long time (It could be done with the help of an ir transceiver connected to a PC and operated, for example, with the help of a web app. But I'm too lazy for that). But such control will certainly not be like another box, written as an application for an already available device. For the TV, I would see it on a classic controller such as the current Apple TV. If someone wants better control using a touch device, they will have to at least buy an ipod.
A detailed article, which the author cared about, but I think it is completely off the mark, although it is based on "Apple thinking", but in reality I do not agree with the main item, which is user experience. Although it connects things that Apple uses, I have to say that I probably wouldn't want such control and I can't think of a single fact how it could realistically simplify, speed up and make TV control more pleasant, and I don't even look at the fact that it would have to satisfy everyone . From me, my parents, a small child, to my grandmother. That's how it works with Mac, iPhone, iPad, and that's why it's so popular - It just works for everyone.
But why not, why not speculate, every idea is valued and worthy of respect in such processing.
The article is interesting, but you didn't understand it at all.
For example.
"Upload me the next episode of Doctor House". Siri will find out when and on which channel the series is being broadcast and set up the recording.”
No, no, Siri will not find out where and on which channel it was, Dr House will simply start streaming from the iTunes store. Everything is linked to the iTunes store and from there the content will be purchased.
If Apple has already produced an iPhone that can also be used as such to control a TV (and iPhone applications to control TVs already exist these days), then the question arises, why produce another such device? Why not just use an off-the-shelf iPhone for that? It just expands the menu that the iPhone offers - in this case, TV control. Of course, it can only be controlled with an Apple TV :)
Heretical thinker: I think the iTV myth is a mystification. Apple has certainly tested and is testing such a device, but all the hype was caused mainly by Jobs's biography.
I'm not saying that apple won't release something like appleTV in thunderbolt display. that is possible. but conceptually, I think that Apple is going elsewhere. where? airplay mirror.
Apple is slowly but surely implementing or planning to implement 1080p HD mirroring. in a situation where you have an iPad / iPhone at home, the Apple TV box is actually quite useless. the fact that apple is going this way, in my opinion, is confirmed by the implementation of air play in OSX 10.8. what does that mean? in my opinion, apple, on the other hand, will go the way of REDUCING apple TV, when its primary and only function in the future can only be air play. as they always said, it's a hobby for them and that's how it looks - it's a nice thing, but basically a dead end, from which there are only two ways out - a: pushed smart TV / air play reduction.
apple has been toying with the first path for a long time, but it is far riskier than anything else. such a product already has competition, it would be very expensive and in the current position it is better for apple not to expand too much.
on the contrary, in my opinion, the second solution is supported by several facts: apple started the path of reduction already with apple TV2, when it depended on "foreign" content. only an interface is created from the device. however, apple still needed a more powerful separate device, because technologically Air Play was not so powerful. what apple needs is just a fast enough chip (A6) to process 1080p HD on both sides.
this theory is supported by the fact that Apple has not used the potential of iOS on Apple TV to this day, even though it could very cheaply and preferred to go the route of mirroring applications and especially games.
it is also logical from the point of view of business: iTV would be extremely expensive to become mass. and while people change mobile phones every year, the TV has a longer cycle. in other words, such a product could be relatively successful, but not a bomb.
apple needs to push its iOS devices and it is more efficient to take apple tv as a peripheral to the device that you MUST buy and can change every year.
my guess? thunderbolt display with 50′ with air play support. what the author of the article describes is essentially the same tactic, and jobsa also had to be logically attacked. but if you already have touch controls, why not use the quad core performance of the A6 and move the entire HW to that "control"?
it sounds similar, but for apple it is diametrically different: an expensive autonomous TV set / flexible peripheral for which you have to buy some other apple product. I think it's apple.
super thought.. I just got "built-in Blu-ray player" .. I strongly doubt it.. just for the reason that Apple doesn't publicly support this technology and responded to the public's questions about whether it will include BR in its devices by e.g. ..he didn't give a damn about the Mac Mini at all..besides, he would be against himself when he has movies in HD on the screen..
Very good article, I agree with most of the conclusions, but the truth will be a little easier with Apple, as always, see. Apple's credo that it's far more complicated to make things simple than the other way around.
There is no point in making a special "remote control" product, on the contrary, Apple can use the iTV as another argument why every household should have an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad on the table in front of the TV.
I am betting on a combination of the iTV box and existing "touch" products that will serve as a remote control. In this way, Apple could elegantly bring its existing products to a completely new group of consumers (now they are more enthusiasts/geeks/posers.
The current general idea of browsing the Internet on a TV seems misguided to me, but surfing on an iPad, finding an interesting show/video, mirroring it on a big TV and putting the iPad down and watching seems completely natural to me as a user.
Thanks for the thought provoking article. In my opinion, it should be a box, something between a Time Capsule and aTV connected to iTunes. So it will replace the satellite for me and I will subscribe to programs in iTunes or play free ones just like we buy apps or music today. Apple would get their 30% and TV companies would have immediate access to millions. Apple probably won't sell just the hardware itself without also supplying the content. The TV control itself could be added to existing devices and if it worked as described in the article, then great.
Nicely detailed, but this concept of using Apple's iTV products and its iOS to control it has been circulating on the Internet for a long time.
The topic of the article is already partially feasible. I run MacMini + XBMC+iPad myself.
Nice article, I agree with the author's point of view.
I think it will be different. It doesn't make sense with that driver. As someone already wrote. Siri and possibly gestures in front of the camera in connection with the Apple remote and the possibility of controlling it with an iPhone or iPad. That's how I see it. That controller could only have one button ala power and call up siri.
very well thought out. make sense.
Personally, I think that Apple didn't make much of a dent in the world with a 50 flat TV with a revolutionary driver, just as it didn't with a 27 CZK Thunderbolt display, most of us will buy an LCD for 25.000 CZK and it will do the same .
I can only tell you what bothers me about the current situation and what I would like to improve.
1) Wi-Fi has high latency and, in fact, on my home network, when I want to control AppleTV via iPad and I have AppleTV connected to the router by wire, it practically does not work at all. AppleTV reacts with a strong delay when I want to play minorring, stream a video or, unfortunately, play a game, everything jerks and buffers for such a long time that I prefer to show the video directly on iOS devices, because the waiting is really annoying.
2) This is also related to streaming from the Internet and even music via iTunes Match, or videos, everything takes a long time to load into the cache, then it does start, but it often stops after a while and waits for Internet availability again.
3) and of course the fact that when I want to turn on appleTV, I have to find the TV controller, switch to HDMI and only then control from iOS
How would I imagine it?
1) An Apple TV 3 box, which would have IR pointing at the TV and at the same time also have DVB-T (S, C) tuners and other inputs that TVs now normally have.
2) I come home, take the iPhone out of my pocket, turn on the application, the Apple TV turns on the TV via IR and switches it to the HDMI input, and the application will now be controlled only by the Apple TV, through which I can launch anything, internet, streams, television broadcasts.
Anyway, I don't think I'll have to build this from a third party manufacturer. Because I remember that Steve once commented that due to the infinite number of different formats of television broadcasts, it is not realistic to provide one perfect set-top box, TV, and so they will try it in the form of a stream and iTunes, which is fine, but I think from the TV company and they won't convince people so quickly to turn off their satellites and cable TV and start paying only in iTunes.
And I still remembered two other things that make me.
When I hold the IR controller in my hand, I can immediately press the button and wait for how long the device will start.
When I control iOS, I first have to open the device, then launch the application, then wait for the application to activate and connect to the Apple TV, and then I can turn on the device.
Which is an unpleasant delay in addition. However, I'd like to wait for it if it brings me something extra, as the article mentions, but the Remoute application is quite bad, it's actually just a Touch for the TV, and I don't know how you like it, it doesn't suit me at all, the control is terribly imprecise (ps: mode keyboard is fine then).
And if such an iTV is really supposed to be everywhere like an iPad, then I think that people still want CDs, DVDs, Blurays, HDDs or NAS, and that the iTV should be compatible with all of these. But Apple didn't do that, because it wouldn't have brought him any extra money in the long run.
The mirroring is really slow. When playing RealRacing2, it's enough for a woman to walk by and mow. At the same time, the N-Fulll router and everything else by wire to Giga.
Maybe one has to use wifi and apple. I don't see.