The way I look at it is, if the day comes when I want to replace my largest TV, a 60" and Apple make one with ATV built in plus all the extra cool stuff and it is priced at the same as an alternative traditional TV plus an ATV, why wouldn't I buy the Apple iTV?
all-in-one home entertainment is expensive to update. look at the old TV/VCR combos: the TV was still good even though everyone moved on to DVD. Look at the LCD TV/DVD combos: the TV is still fine but you can't swap the DVD for a BluRay or AppleTV. The HUGE benefit of a component system is that you only have to update the obsolete parts, and you aren't buying components you don't need. i don't plan on buying another 60" TV just because the aTV [hockey puck] has been updated - i'll just spend 99 bucks on a new aTV to plug into my $3500 TV.
I predict that if Apple works out how to turn water into gold cheaply, and if the current price of gold remains at around present levels, then Apple will be able to make a lot of money.
That wasn't an analysis, it was stating the bleeding obvious.
I will buy THREE A6 Apple TVs on the day of launch. I will NEVER buy an Apple HDTV.
I can't say never until I see the real thing. I can rule it out if there's no model >=55". I have a few LED backlit LCDs for lesser rooms but stick with plasma for main viewing. I'm leaning toward 3x A6 Apple TV appliances as well.
I think most of these analysts are thinking too small. The iTV, if it exists, is, like all Apple's current products, likely to be a computer masquerading as a consumer electronics device. It's going to run iOS and it's going to have an App Store and it's going to solve the problem of interacting from a distance. Content deals are important but each country is different. Personally I think the iTV will be an answer to an even broader question: What is the role of large displays in a world in which tablets and smartphones dominate? Not just the big screen in your living room but the one on your desk and the projector in your conference room and so forth. How will we interact with them? How will our devices interact with them?
I still think its the home theater receiver that's the real piece of crap. Come on, right down to the little monochrome LCD display. Swiching between devices is the biggest pain in the ass. T ere is a volume control on each device( When i plug my ipod in to the dock it is the only device smart enough to disable its own voume control). That's what needs to be redone. The tv is just a screen. The big question would be how much amplifier power you would want to run the speakers
Or you give the tv all the input and switching features of the HT Reciver and included a smaller but almost adequate audio amp built in(80-100 watts / channel) and include a audio line out for a power amp. Or a powered sub woofer.
I'm of the belief they'd only sell one or the other. I'm also of the belief they'd not make a TV at all, but that's me.
The only box that will be missing features is the current Apple TV which won't get the update to the next one's software. That's just how Apple rolls.
Oh, and to answer the question, I still wouldn't get it. I've no use nor desire for an integrated TV when buying ANY TV and a $99 box is a much better solution.
I agree, it would be so much better if Apple released a redesigned Apple TV, even if it was $199. They could still do Facetime, Siri, Apps, and revolutionize the way we watch television, all while leaving the war between inches, display technology, reliability, brightness, clarity, and price to the current manufacturers.
As a TV maker, they would be one manufacturer in a highly competitive mature market, it would be a big uphill battle to establish a market share.
As a set top box maker, they would be virtually unchallenged and could transcend the entire market. For lack of a better term, they could be the Microsoft of TVs, which is a huge opportunity.
If Apple were to offer high-definition television sets with an average selling price of $1,500, one Wall Street analyst believes the company could capture 5 percent of the market and earn $17 billion in revenue.
I predict that Apple will capture 7.5% of the market and earn 25.5 billion in revenue.
In HW specs, sure, but an AppleTV is designed to work on a TV. If you connect a Mini to your TV you are wasting a lot of HW and functionality that Front Row doesn't support, and paying a lot of extra money for the limited usability.
I have both an ATV and a mini hooked up as an HTB. The ATV is nice and simple to use but limited to what apple puts in its menus. The mini has XBMC installed, I don't use Front Row. XBMC provides far more content that the ATV has. In addition I can use the browser to surf to sites that have content that is not available on the ATV. Things like hulu or tv station websites spring to mind.
I did have an first gen intel mini gathering dust so there was no extra money involved. Even so if I had to choose between an ATV and buying an "OLDER" mini, I'd go with the mini.
The technology exists today to directly, and cost effectively address your design concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
.......
Nothing about a partnership with content providers makes putting the AppleTV HW in a TV a more lucrative maneuver. The only HW that would really only work in that sense are any cameras (FaceTime) or motion sensors. However the former has issues because TVs are not placed directly in from of the face the way FaceTime cameras on Macs and iDevices are.
Clearly two (or more) cameras with at least 1 the direction of which can be changed would solve this. Today's face recognition software would allow tracking easily, especially combined with a microphone array to detect who is speaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Mics for Siri would likely have to be placed in the remote control. You can't have it that far away from the speaker
This would easily be address with a small array of microphones acting in a phased array combined with face recognition. The TV would track faces and voices in the room and create a directional microphone to pick up voices. The SW and HW for this is inexpensive and straight forward today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
and you still need to initiate Siri with a button press.
Give the above, the typical attention word approach - say 'Siri' - would probably suffice to activate the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I doubt some elaborate hand gesture will work for this.
The above would be much simpler (IMO) than hand gestures which should be reserved for other functions.
I hate these analysts. They have zero clue about products and technology. They just throw out numbers, nothing more.
1) The analyst believe that Apple LCDTV will be released world wide. Not even the AppleTV is released world wide.
2) 17 Billion in revenue is totally uninteresting since almost all LCD/Plasma vendors looses money on a 300Billion industry. The profit is interesting, not the revenue.
The Apple LCD TV project is instresting since it will pair a fast A class processor with a large LCD screen. Its a iOS Imac, more or less.
What Apple needs is content. If they can get all TV companies to rent out their content to a true OnDemand TV world, that would be huge. The TV companies get their advertising revenue and the advertising cant be sipped since its streaming. Apple is compensated somehow. Maybe the same deal as they have with the music industry 9-11% of revenue goes to Apple.
Apple needs to find compelling reasons for people like me to throw out good 50+ inch LCD/Plasma and replace it with Apples LCD.
1) A6 processor. Raw computer power like a quod core Intel. This is much better then the competition.
2) Apple visual processor. The A5 have shown what it can do. Since all TV today is 720P Apple can use it to upscale the content to the best 1080P seen in the business.
3) Apps.
4) Computer replacement for many. Just use a bluetooth keyboard and some input device and you can do everything like on an Imac (except specific programs done by companies that are lazy like Adobe)
In HW specs, sure, but an AppleTV is designed to work on a TV. If you connect a Mini to your TV you are wasting a lot of HW and functionality that Front Row doesn't support, and paying a lot of extra money for the limited usability.
It was pointed out yesterday that cable companies get quite a lot of money off renting the equipment. I can see your point if these Moto, SA, et al. cable boxes are a loss leader but I'm thinking they are not. If you consider service and support it's simple to test and replace a box so I'm not sure that they will save much by letting Apple take over and losing control of an important part of their setup.
PS: Why are cable boxes and cable modems separate devices. I see no reason why these can't be one device.
maybe revenue, but you have to figure that each box is like $500. and the times when i have been to the Time Warner Cable store to get one replaced i saw a HUGE stack of good and bad boxes there. they take it from you with some basic info and give you a new one with no testing so there is probably a lot of overhead in testing the "bad" units.
the current gen of boxes are due to be upgraded and i don't think they want to spend a lot of cash for this when you can easily put the functionality in even the cheapest of TV's or one of the many add on boxes consumers buy
Maybe but there are lots of other choices. Even an older mac mini blows the socks of the ATV.
I suspect you are referring to the ATV mark 1. Since the second version, all streaming, AirPlay and iCloud I fail to see how any Mac new or old can substitute the ATV and that isn't even taking the $99 price into account.
Comments
The way I look at it is, if the day comes when I want to replace my largest TV, a 60" and Apple make one with ATV built in plus all the extra cool stuff and it is priced at the same as an alternative traditional TV plus an ATV, why wouldn't I buy the Apple iTV?
all-in-one home entertainment is expensive to update. look at the old TV/VCR combos: the TV was still good even though everyone moved on to DVD. Look at the LCD TV/DVD combos: the TV is still fine but you can't swap the DVD for a BluRay or AppleTV. The HUGE benefit of a component system is that you only have to update the obsolete parts, and you aren't buying components you don't need. i don't plan on buying another 60" TV just because the aTV [hockey puck] has been updated - i'll just spend 99 bucks on a new aTV to plug into my $3500 TV.
That wasn't an analysis, it was stating the bleeding obvious.
Make it at all and I'll never buy it.
I will buy THREE A6 Apple TVs on the day of launch. I will NEVER buy an Apple HDTV.
I can't say never until I see the real thing. I can rule it out if there's no model >=55". I have a few LED backlit LCDs for lesser rooms but stick with plasma for main viewing. I'm leaning toward 3x A6 Apple TV appliances as well.
The TV may have an SSD expansion slot. The set-top box may have a thunderbolt port.
Or you give the tv all the input and switching features of the HT Reciver and included a smaller but almost adequate audio amp built in(80-100 watts / channel) and include a audio line out for a power amp. Or a powered sub woofer.
I'm of the belief they'd only sell one or the other. I'm also of the belief they'd not make a TV at all, but that's me.
The only box that will be missing features is the current Apple TV which won't get the update to the next one's software. That's just how Apple rolls.
Oh, and to answer the question, I still wouldn't get it. I've no use nor desire for an integrated TV when buying ANY TV and a $99 box is a much better solution.
I agree, it would be so much better if Apple released a redesigned Apple TV, even if it was $199. They could still do Facetime, Siri, Apps, and revolutionize the way we watch television, all while leaving the war between inches, display technology, reliability, brightness, clarity, and price to the current manufacturers.
As a TV maker, they would be one manufacturer in a highly competitive mature market, it would be a big uphill battle to establish a market share.
As a set top box maker, they would be virtually unchallenged and could transcend the entire market. For lack of a better term, they could be the Microsoft of TVs, which is a huge opportunity.
If Apple were to offer high-definition television sets with an average selling price of $1,500, one Wall Street analyst believes the company could capture 5 percent of the market and earn $17 billion in revenue.
I predict that Apple will capture 7.5% of the market and earn 25.5 billion in revenue.
In HW specs, sure, but an AppleTV is designed to work on a TV. If you connect a Mini to your TV you are wasting a lot of HW and functionality that Front Row doesn't support, and paying a lot of extra money for the limited usability.
I have both an ATV and a mini hooked up as an HTB. The ATV is nice and simple to use but limited to what apple puts in its menus. The mini has XBMC installed, I don't use Front Row. XBMC provides far more content that the ATV has. In addition I can use the browser to surf to sites that have content that is not available on the ATV. Things like hulu or tv station websites spring to mind.
I did have an first gen intel mini gathering dust so there was no extra money involved. Even so if I had to choose between an ATV and buying an "OLDER" mini, I'd go with the mini.
I predict that Apple will capture 7.5% of the market and earn 25.5 billion in revenue.
I ran the numbers. Apple will own 150% of the market and make -4% of the profits.
I might have messed something up.
The Apple TV rumor mill is on fire this week.
Man, I sure hope they put it out soon. Did everyone get out safely?
Anyway...
I personally don't know what would excite me enough to spend what Apple would charge.
I ran the numbers. Apple will own 150% of the market and make -4% of the profits.
I might have messed something up.
That reminds me of my math results in advanced physics class and why i am not now a physicist
.......
Nothing about a partnership with content providers makes putting the AppleTV HW in a TV a more lucrative maneuver. The only HW that would really only work in that sense are any cameras (FaceTime) or motion sensors. However the former has issues because TVs are not placed directly in from of the face the way FaceTime cameras on Macs and iDevices are.
Clearly two (or more) cameras with at least 1 the direction of which can be changed would solve this. Today's face recognition software would allow tracking easily, especially combined with a microphone array to detect who is speaking.
Mics for Siri would likely have to be placed in the remote control. You can't have it that far away from the speaker
This would easily be address with a small array of microphones acting in a phased array combined with face recognition. The TV would track faces and voices in the room and create a directional microphone to pick up voices. The SW and HW for this is inexpensive and straight forward today.
and you still need to initiate Siri with a button press.
Give the above, the typical attention word approach - say 'Siri' - would probably suffice to activate the software.
I doubt some elaborate hand gesture will work for this.
The above would be much simpler (IMO) than hand gestures which should be reserved for other functions.
1) The analyst believe that Apple LCDTV will be released world wide. Not even the AppleTV is released world wide.
2) 17 Billion in revenue is totally uninteresting since almost all LCD/Plasma vendors looses money on a 300Billion industry. The profit is interesting, not the revenue.
The Apple LCD TV project is instresting since it will pair a fast A class processor with a large LCD screen. Its a iOS Imac, more or less.
What Apple needs is content. If they can get all TV companies to rent out their content to a true OnDemand TV world, that would be huge. The TV companies get their advertising revenue and the advertising cant be sipped since its streaming. Apple is compensated somehow. Maybe the same deal as they have with the music industry 9-11% of revenue goes to Apple.
Apple needs to find compelling reasons for people like me to throw out good 50+ inch LCD/Plasma and replace it with Apples LCD.
1) A6 processor. Raw computer power like a quod core Intel. This is much better then the competition.
2) Apple visual processor. The A5 have shown what it can do. Since all TV today is 720P Apple can use it to upscale the content to the best 1080P seen in the business.
3) Apps.
4) Computer replacement for many. Just use a bluetooth keyboard and some input device and you can do everything like on an Imac (except specific programs done by companies that are lazy like Adobe)
In HW specs, sure, but an AppleTV is designed to work on a TV. If you connect a Mini to your TV you are wasting a lot of HW and functionality that Front Row doesn't support, and paying a lot of extra money for the limited usability.
It was pointed out yesterday that cable companies get quite a lot of money off renting the equipment. I can see your point if these Moto, SA, et al. cable boxes are a loss leader but I'm thinking they are not. If you consider service and support it's simple to test and replace a box so I'm not sure that they will save much by letting Apple take over and losing control of an important part of their setup.
PS: Why are cable boxes and cable modems separate devices. I see no reason why these can't be one device.
maybe revenue, but you have to figure that each box is like $500. and the times when i have been to the Time Warner Cable store to get one replaced i saw a HUGE stack of good and bad boxes there. they take it from you with some basic info and give you a new one with no testing so there is probably a lot of overhead in testing the "bad" units.
the current gen of boxes are due to be upgraded and i don't think they want to spend a lot of cash for this when you can easily put the functionality in even the cheapest of TV's or one of the many add on boxes consumers buy
Maybe but there are lots of other choices. Even an older mac mini blows the socks of the ATV.
I suspect you are referring to the ATV mark 1. Since the second version, all streaming, AirPlay and iCloud I fail to see how any Mac new or old can substitute the ATV and that isn't even taking the $99 price into account.