If you don't pay attention to live sports, you're basically not getting a first-hand view of the real money behind television.
Then perhaps there's money to be made by appealing to people who don't want to be held hostage to the sports/cable cartel. People who aren't interested in drug juiced thyroid cases banging into each other.
Then perhaps there's money to be made by appealing to people who don't want to be held hostage to the sports/cable cartel. People who aren't interested in drug juiced thyroid cases banging into each other.
Sorry, major sporting events command higher television ad rates than non-sports programming.
If the major networks/cable companies could have the Super Bowl, Masters golf, NCAA March Madness all twelve months of the year, they would gladly dump everything else.
That's how the NHL ended up on Versus with a pathetic television contract. They were no longer a good "product" and couldn't command the advertising. Remember, there was a time when spelling bees on ESPN were getting higher ratings than hockey games.
It's not just about putting some neckless juiced athlete on the field, it's about putting an athlete that people will watch.
There's plenty of room for non-sports programming. Heck, I will gladly admit that most of my non-sports programming are PBS shows: NOVA, Nature, P.O.V., Frontline, etc. I value this content, which is why I donate to my local PBS station.
If it offers the same or very similar rental features as Netflix why can't they maybe not beat them, but strongly compete?
Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker
On TV, live sporting events are all that matter. Unless Apple can find a way to overcome the contractual obligations of sports teams to the networks than this idea is a non-starter.
I agree, sports is the only thing keeping me tethered to cable tv. If someone could find a way to get live sports on apple tv or any similar device I'd dump comcast and get a *tv box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl
Apple moves their own hardware, keeps things simple.
They did try to do the Volkswagen iPod car a handful of years ago, but the deal fell through (reportedly). Apple doesn't make cars, but they tried to get VW to put iPod like device and more into cars. Why not a TV?
For the people saying "BS" and false will you return and admit to being wrong if this time next year Apple is offering HDTVs at their stores and in Best Buy? Some here love to make bold claims as if...
Sorry, major sporting events command higher television ad rates than non-sports programming.
Absolutely no doubt whatsoever, they also command higher pay per view figures. But that doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for cable who don't watch sport. Those people might be willing to pay for a different television solution that didn't leave them paying for a bunch of channels that they never watch - which is how cable/satellite tends to end up in the UK.
It wouldn't be a huge seller, definitely more of a toe-in-the -water product. But then it wouldn't cost much to develop either, just a nice enclosure, a standard panel and a set-top box that they already have.
What a twisted view of television, and how insulting to say it like that.
Ever occur to you that other people don't necessarily share your likes/dislikes? If you want to talk market share there are other categories of programming at least as popular. There are many that make more money for the cable operators also.
I think you are missing his point - it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of ad revenue. For pretty much all non-sports programming, folks are more and more opting for viewing options that allow them omit/skip through ads(DVDs, DVR, torrents, etc). But most sports fans like to watch their events in real time, so they are captive audiences to the ads, and are likely to stay that way. Thus the comment that the big $$$ is from sports.
And of course the whole Apple selling TVs is BS. Just what they want to do - get in to a high cost commodity business. It sounds like some clueless suit giving his idea of innovation. Why make a $2000 TV with low margins when you can make a $99 box you can hide behind the TV that delivers 100% of the content/interface? If anything I see Apple working with someone to make "Apple TV ready televisions" (like AirPrint or AirPlay peripherals).
For the people saying "BS" and false will you return and admit to being wrong if this time next year Apple is offering HDTVs at their stores and in Best Buy? Some here love to make bold claims as if...
The thing is that they probably won't need to.
My guess is that 95-98% of Apple rumors on all technology sites end up being false. If you read something about Apple that didn't originate from Apple.com, most likely it is not true and won't be.
I've made my share of inane predictions, but I've always recognized my odds of being correct. Heck, just accepting the fact that most predictions are wrong may actually make you a more saner judge of what's probable.
If the price is right and works out of the box with my ipad and iphone for airplay, remote and such, I cannot see why I wouldn't choose it over other TV's.
Is it just me or was that graphic comparing the Apple TV to a standard TV package a little rediculous? $150 for a blu-ray player, 0% chance the Apple TV has any kind of similar feature. $300 for a DVR plus monthly fees (only if you're using TiVo). $130 for an Audio receiver, is the Apple TV going to have the functionality of a receiver (nope). $250 game console, can i play Modern Warfare on it (doubtful). $97/month for comcast? I hope the Apple TV allows me to watch anything I want at anytime for that price comparison.
It should be more like $1000 (for 120hz led not lcd), $70/month for comcast, $100 for an Apple TV equals $1170 compared to $2000.
I would be intrigued to see an actual Apple Television though. They don't half-ass anything they put out (I guess except for the original Apple TV) and would love to see what they come up with. Lets just hope its a little more well thought out than Google TV though if it does happen.
All you naysayers will be lining up around the Apple Store for iTV.
Well, I might be one of them …
I don't really believe this rumor will come to fruition but it could. Certainly Apple would like to be in the living room. Big market and potentially big bucks. It is also an area Apple knows is ripe for a makeover and one in which Apple could do 'revolutionary' things. The (alleged) tv would be part of a broad push. Large screens has value in terms of getting the Apple brand in to the right place - in front of eye balls.
So if ApPle can find a away for all the different content providers to come aboard and find technically find a way for this to be done - and convince the content providers to let Apple take care of the interface - much like Netflix content is presented through the atv interface, then maybe.
As far as screen sizes it is much less problematic - starting with 30, 40 & 50" models.
One other point - the day Apple starts selling TV sets in the apple store is the day Apple needs to set up a 'pro' division.
Great idea. If Samsung was making the set, and it had an integrated iTunes, Apple TV, and perhaps a hard drive for internal storage, I'd be all over it. I like the current Apple TV's, but finding a place to mount it for free hanging televisions sucks. Apple wants to rule the household entertainment experience, and this is right on par with that goal.
The details are vague in this post ("a former Apple exec?") so there is little to comment on. But I would say that the value add that Apple would bring (if they did this) would be a simplification of the ever more complex and stupid tangle of wires that TV has become. A smart, powerful, centralized, and sensible Media center that works with the internet and the various usual computing devices and home network hardware, and does so seamlessly, would be a good thing. It should cost no more than a similar quality TV plus $250-$300 bucks or so (depending on features.) A thunderbolt plug that allows a variety of ad ons or even just the ability to use it as a monitor would be a nice.
Pay per view can be delivered via the internet as easily as cable. Perhaps the cable companies will get smart and offer their wares via the internet on a pay as you go basis. Paying for cable + internet + mobile + NetFlix + whatever every month is wearing thin for people. So much of it is redundant. There is room for disruption in this space. People want to pay less, to one entity, for a service that covers more of the bases. They'll be happy to pay extra for the things they want but don't want to be bothered with what they don't care about. Apple (perhaps partnering with Tivo, NetFlix, and some forward thinking content providers) could fill the bill nicely.
I was also thinking $2000 was a little too high, but Apple seems to be doing well with its significantly higher priced Mac lineup. When you see a Windows PC comparably equipped to a $2000 Macbook Pro you can usually find it for $1000-1200. They have proven people will pay for design + user experience. Too many other companies ignore this and race to the lowest price, which is why Apple continues to grow while others are struggling.
I was also thinking $2000 was a little too high, but Apple seems to be doing well with its significantly higher priced Mac lineup. When you see a Windows PC comparably equipped to a $2000 Macbook Pro you can usually find it for $1000-1200. They have proven people will pay for design + user experience. Too many other companies ignore this and race to the lowest price, which is why Apple continues to grow while others are struggling.
This is a constant argument all over the internet, especially slashdot. But I come down on the side that gets stuck on that "comparable" thing. When the hardware is actually "comparable" Apple HW is competitive (particularly in laptops.) The Mac Pros and Mac Mini tend to be more expensive, but there really isn't a lot of similar hardware to compare it to. Just don't buy RAM from Apple.
Cool.... hope this rumor is right. Still have yet to buy a flat screen and ever since I heard rumor of this... someplace.... I decided to hold off. I always wondered why nobody was building a DVR right into the TV.
Comments
If you don't pay attention to live sports, you're basically not getting a first-hand view of the real money behind television.
Then perhaps there's money to be made by appealing to people who don't want to be held hostage to the sports/cable cartel. People who aren't interested in drug juiced thyroid cases banging into each other.
Then perhaps there's money to be made by appealing to people who don't want to be held hostage to the sports/cable cartel. People who aren't interested in drug juiced thyroid cases banging into each other.
Sorry, major sporting events command higher television ad rates than non-sports programming.
If the major networks/cable companies could have the Super Bowl, Masters golf, NCAA March Madness all twelve months of the year, they would gladly dump everything else.
That's how the NHL ended up on Versus with a pathetic television contract. They were no longer a good "product" and couldn't command the advertising. Remember, there was a time when spelling bees on ESPN were getting higher ratings than hockey games.
It's not just about putting some neckless juiced athlete on the field, it's about putting an athlete that people will watch.
There's plenty of room for non-sports programming. Heck, I will gladly admit that most of my non-sports programming are PBS shows: NOVA, Nature, P.O.V., Frontline, etc. I value this content, which is why I donate to my local PBS station.
You don't beat Netflix with hardware
If it offers the same or very similar rental features as Netflix why can't they maybe not beat them, but strongly compete?
On TV, live sporting events are all that matter. Unless Apple can find a way to overcome the contractual obligations of sports teams to the networks than this idea is a non-starter.
I agree, sports is the only thing keeping me tethered to cable tv. If someone could find a way to get live sports on apple tv or any similar device I'd dump comcast and get a *tv box.
Apple moves their own hardware, keeps things simple.
They did try to do the Volkswagen iPod car a handful of years ago, but the deal fell through (reportedly). Apple doesn't make cars, but they tried to get VW to put iPod like device and more into cars. Why not a TV?
For the people saying "BS" and false will you return and admit to being wrong if this time next year Apple is offering HDTVs at their stores and in Best Buy? Some here love to make bold claims as if...
Sorry, major sporting events command higher television ad rates than non-sports programming.
Absolutely no doubt whatsoever, they also command higher pay per view figures. But that doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for cable who don't watch sport. Those people might be willing to pay for a different television solution that didn't leave them paying for a bunch of channels that they never watch - which is how cable/satellite tends to end up in the UK.
It wouldn't be a huge seller, definitely more of a toe-in-the -water product. But then it wouldn't cost much to develop either, just a nice enclosure, a standard panel and a set-top box that they already have.
What a twisted view of television, and how insulting to say it like that.
Ever occur to you that other people don't necessarily share your likes/dislikes? If you want to talk market share there are other categories of programming at least as popular. There are many that make more money for the cable operators also.
I think you are missing his point - it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of ad revenue. For pretty much all non-sports programming, folks are more and more opting for viewing options that allow them omit/skip through ads(DVDs, DVR, torrents, etc). But most sports fans like to watch their events in real time, so they are captive audiences to the ads, and are likely to stay that way. Thus the comment that the big $$$ is from sports.
And of course the whole Apple selling TVs is BS. Just what they want to do - get in to a high cost commodity business. It sounds like some clueless suit giving his idea of innovation. Why make a $2000 TV with low margins when you can make a $99 box you can hide behind the TV that delivers 100% of the content/interface? If anything I see Apple working with someone to make "Apple TV ready televisions" (like AirPrint or AirPlay peripherals).
My ATV replaced my stereo in my loving room so I was able to get rid of the components and all the attendant wires, pwr plugs, ugly pwr bricks, etc.
What else you got in your loving room?
For the people saying "BS" and false will you return and admit to being wrong if this time next year Apple is offering HDTVs at their stores and in Best Buy? Some here love to make bold claims as if...
The thing is that they probably won't need to.
My guess is that 95-98% of Apple rumors on all technology sites end up being false. If you read something about Apple that didn't originate from Apple.com, most likely it is not true and won't be.
I've made my share of inane predictions, but I've always recognized my odds of being correct. Heck, just accepting the fact that most predictions are wrong may actually make you a more saner judge of what's probable.
All you naysayers will be lining up around the Apple Store for iTV.
Name 1 compelling reason to replace an existing HDTV with an Apple-branded equivalent...
Yes, I already have an ATV2!
It should be more like $1000 (for 120hz led not lcd), $70/month for comcast, $100 for an Apple TV equals $1170 compared to $2000.
I would be intrigued to see an actual Apple Television though. They don't half-ass anything they put out (I guess except for the original Apple TV) and would love to see what they come up with. Lets just hope its a little more well thought out than Google TV though if it does happen.
All you naysayers will be lining up around the Apple Store for iTV.
Well, I might be one of them …
I don't really believe this rumor will come to fruition but it could. Certainly Apple would like to be in the living room. Big market and potentially big bucks. It is also an area Apple knows is ripe for a makeover and one in which Apple could do 'revolutionary' things. The (alleged) tv would be part of a broad push. Large screens has value in terms of getting the Apple brand in to the right place - in front of eye balls.
So if ApPle can find a away for all the different content providers to come aboard and find technically find a way for this to be done - and convince the content providers to let Apple take care of the interface - much like Netflix content is presented through the atv interface, then maybe.
As far as screen sizes it is much less problematic - starting with 30, 40 & 50" models.
One other point - the day Apple starts selling TV sets in the apple store is the day Apple needs to set up a 'pro' division.
Of all the hardware i would love to buy from Apple, an HDTV is not even on the list.
And you never imagined buying an Apple phone either.
Pay per view can be delivered via the internet as easily as cable. Perhaps the cable companies will get smart and offer their wares via the internet on a pay as you go basis. Paying for cable + internet + mobile + NetFlix + whatever every month is wearing thin for people. So much of it is redundant. There is room for disruption in this space. People want to pay less, to one entity, for a service that covers more of the bases. They'll be happy to pay extra for the things they want but don't want to be bothered with what they don't care about. Apple (perhaps partnering with Tivo, NetFlix, and some forward thinking content providers) could fill the bill nicely.
Name 1 compelling reason to replace an existing HDTV with an Apple-branded equivalent...
Yes, I already have an ATV2!
Quality ? Apple quality hardware
Integrated experience ? decent UI,
Simplicity ? one remote, few cables, it just works
Disruption ? fewer billing entities, lower service prices, F&#* the cable company
1. Apple has been selling computer displays for a decades and they've often featured best in class. What's a TV but a monitor with a tuner?
2. Jobs has always wanted to follow in Sony's footsteps.
3. Remember the speaker system that Apple sold? Jobs likes electronics.
4. Apple likes to reinvent things. Why not TV next?
5. Apple wants to control the whole ecosystem with computing. With mobile. Soon with TV.
6. An Apple TV with your iPhone/iPod/iPad as a remote control. Natural.
7. Apple could get fetch a bigger margin on TVs than anybody in the world.
8. It's a big market.
9. Apps on the biggest screen in the house...makes a lot of sense.
10. Apple will sell the thing with ONE cable that will handle every input and output.
11. It's a perfect way to sell more content on iTunes
12. It will probably have a great audio system included. All in One.
I was also thinking $2000 was a little too high, but Apple seems to be doing well with its significantly higher priced Mac lineup. When you see a Windows PC comparably equipped to a $2000 Macbook Pro you can usually find it for $1000-1200. They have proven people will pay for design + user experience. Too many other companies ignore this and race to the lowest price, which is why Apple continues to grow while others are struggling.
This is a constant argument all over the internet, especially slashdot. But I come down on the side that gets stuck on that "comparable" thing. When the hardware is actually "comparable" Apple HW is competitive (particularly in laptops.) The Mac Pros and Mac Mini tend to be more expensive, but there really isn't a lot of similar hardware to compare it to. Just don't buy RAM from Apple.