Apple seen taking 5% of HDTV market, earning $17B in revenue

12346

Comments

  • nhtnht Posts: 3,019member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.



    DiSH's market cap is only $12.75B.



    Doesn't keep content providers from pulling the plug though.



    DirectTV is $33B.
  • geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    1) Note the words "nut" and "crack". Also note that cable companies don't use their own boxes for this, they buy them from various HW vendors. If Apple could offer them something the others can't, like being cheaper or having the expense come from the customer, not from them, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Apple has a way with sourcing components and creating a system that works across every field thus reducing their costs which they could use to leverage their customers.



    I just do not see the billion dollar cable companies agreeing to have Apple replace the hardware not matter what the minor cost savings. It would letting a giant threat in the front door. As pointed out Apple dominates every market they enter. The cable companies know this..... so why let them in the front door?
  • dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I completely agree! Not only very very costly but a very lengthy process. Contracts would have be negotiated between federal governmental agencies all the way down to municipalities.....not to mention all the content providers...it would take years to get it done. Not to mention cable and satellite companies fighting them every step of the way. Some content providers have exclusive contracts with cities so they could only get it done after the current contract runs out. Too big a hurdle even for Apple and their cash reserves.



    If they go satellite, I believe they get out of local franchise issues. But just the same, they'd face some really high hurdles, some from regulators and even more from the networks. I'm remembering what a massive arm wrestle it was to get local programming carried on satellite.



    I am hoping, no begging, that Apple figures out how to rationalize the TV industry. The way it is now is a total mess. I just don't see how they do it. But then if it was easy to conceptualize, somebody would have done it by now.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,495member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...]"If Apple were to sell a TV, we continue to believe its margins and pricing could be industry leading given its vertical integration with content."[...]



    I laugh when I hear haters say "The Apple TV set will cost $3,000." No it won't.



    The heart of the unit will be a slightly improved version of today's Apple TV circuit board. Apple TV sells for $100 now.



    The TV itself could be a super-sized Thunderbolt Display. 50" or so. Dead simple. Apple is working with Sharp on next-gen LCD and OLED processes. And IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) technology can be used in LCD as well as OLED screens. IGZO provides brighter images and/or lower energy consumption. And it provides higher manufacturing yields than current technology. Apple and Sharp have also apparently developed a high-yield OLED screen "printing" process.



    And what do high yields mean? Lower production cost. And what does lower production cost mean? Higher margins and lower retail pricing.



    Less than $100 for the Apple TV circuit board. Plus a low-cost, high-quality, energy-efficient HDTV screen.

    Minus an excessively complex remote, minus cable inputs, minus over-the-air broadcast tuner.

    Could be pretty cheap. We'll know sooner or later.
  • christophbchristophb Posts: 1,365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I just do not see the billion dollar cable companies agreeing to have Apple replace the hardware not matter what the minor cost savings. It would letting a giant threat in the front door. As pointed out Apple dominates every market they enter. The cable companies know this..... so why let them in the front door?



    Wasn't it Cablecard 2.x that was supposed to replace the external cable box and allow for the cable company to reprogram what features and content your set was allowed to view. And could move the card between sets and the features follow the card. I recall there were so many problems with remote reprogramming or getting dynamic content like ppv working killed it's adoption; possibly concerns about hacking the cards.



    If Apple could do something like that - connect to an AT&T style home media gateway over N or an Ethernet interface - I could see cable companies signing on. Less gear on perm, less cabling supported by their field techs.
  • geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


    If Apple could do something like that - connect to an AT&T style home media gateway over N or an Ethernet interface - I could see cable companies signing on. Less gear on perm, less cabling supported by their field techs.



    I just don't see the cable companies allowing Apple into their systems. So lets say they allow Apple to have the cable box integrated into a Apple TV. The hardware cost aside.... now Apple's hardware has to be provisioned onto the cable companies systems. Ok...not easy but it can be done....they do it with the iphones and wireless providers so..it could happen. Now all of your content from the cable company comes through Apple hardware. Awesome for Apple...but hey Apple also provides content...too...they sell/rent movies....music ...apps. Do you think Apple would be satisfied with just hardware? So there would be a real chance for Apple to eventually provide that content....selling you movies...TV episodes...and music to the awesome Apple TV! This would be a HUGE revenue loss for the cable companies! So why would they do it??? I just don't see it! It seems like a lose lose for the cable companies...short term and long term.....
  • christophbchristophb Posts: 1,365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I just don't see the cable companies allowing Apple into their systems. So lets say they allow Apple to have the cable box integrated into a Apple TV.



    It seems like a lose lose for the cable companies...short term and long term.....



    Some of these same companies are in bed with Apple for iPhone. All those companies are having to deal with several hardware providers for home gateways and tuners - motorola, cisco (Scientific Atlanta), etc.



    Edit: I think content servicing to TVs will go this way and cable companies standing in the way instead of evolving and collaborating will turn them into RIM. I think the fight will be to keep customers on their backbones and attract content providers to host on the same backbone. My example would be AT&T doing content delivery for MLB.TV which is already on AppleTV2.



    Edit 2: I can see AT&T and Verizon jumping in first because they understand that they could be reduced to just a pipe.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    I would love to see some references on you claims. And please no blogs.



    How about a press release from AT&T about the end of the profit sharing and the beginning of the subsidization model.
    Quote:

    New Agreement With Apple Reflects Significant Growth Opportunity

    The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple. Under the revised agreement, which is consistent with traditional equipment manufacturer-carrier arrangements, there is no revenue sharing and both

    iPhone 3G models will be offered at attractive prices to broaden the market potential and accelerate subscriber volumes. The phones will be offered with a two-year contract and attractive data plans that are similar to those offered for other smartphones and PDAs. AT&T anticipates that these offers will drive increased sales volumes and revenues among high-quality, data-centric customers. Currently, less than 20 percent of AT&T's postpaid subscribers have integrated devices capable of voice, Web and data applications. Based on the company's experience, average monthly revenues per iPhone subscriber are nearly double the average of the company's overall subscriber base.



    With a two-year contract, the price of an 8GB iPhone 3G will be $199; the 16GB model will be priced at $299.

    Unlimited iPhone 3G data plans for consumers will be available for $30 a month, in addition to voice plans starting at $39.99 a month.

    Unlimited 3G data plans for business users will be available for $45 a month, in addition to a voice plan.



    In the near term, AT&T anticipates that the new agreement will likely result in some pressure on margins and earnings, reflecting the costs of subsidized device pricing, which, in turn, is expected to drive increased subscriber volumes. The company anticipates potential dilution to earnings per share (EPS) from this initiative in the $0.10 to $0.12 range this year and next, with a 2008 adjusted consolidated operating income margin of approximately 24 percent and a full-year 2008 wireless OIBDA margin in the 39-40 percent range. As recurring revenue streams build without any further revenue sharing required, AT&T expects the initiative to turn accretive in 2010.



    You can say the original iPhone was a success — no one is questioning that — but you can't say the profit sharing model was a success if it lasted for model for one year before being trashed in favour of the old subiszation standard.
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Different stuff for different people.

    I want to look at blu rays.



    Had to buy an MacMini with graphic card to be able to see bluray. Worked great.

    Then Bluray 3D was released and I had to swap to a HDMI 1.4 MacMini.



    Why have 50 inch TVs and watch 720P? Only blu ray have the full 1080P resolution.



    Its also fun to have a couple of thousends of TV shows/movies connected to the mini using thunderbolt/USB.



    Ok, I can see that logic. I also stream from my Mac to the ATV from a hard drive full movies so I kind of have a hybrid set up too.
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)



    An Airport Extreme device to send content to the TV and everywhere else in the house

    iDevices for games and ... err... that's it.



    I think you are right in that it makes more sense just to make a set top box type thing like aTV2, but ditto for desktop computers. Logically Apple ought only to make the mini. As Apple is very design driven / focussed I am sure the aTV will never quite appeal as much as an all in one unit.



    If Apple we to drop ATVs in favor of such an iTV it would be a great marketing push to offer all ATV owners a $99 discount on proof of owning an ATV as a reward for being guinea pigs.
  • rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    If Dish is looking for a buyer, how about Apple? I personally like DirecTV better but I'm sure Apple could vastly improve Dish and make it competitive with DirecTV and cable.
  • srangersranger Posts: 469member
    89% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    89% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....



    50% of people reading this won't believe it.
  • orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:

    Ben A. Reitzes with Barclays Capital calculates that the LCD market will reach about 230 million units in calendar year 2012. He suggested that Apple could, over time, capture 5 percent of that market and earn $17 billion in revenue, which would be almost 10 percent of his fiscal 2013 estimate of $183.1 billion for the company.



    With assumed gross margins of around 40 percent on a full-fledged Apple television set, he sees the company gaining about $5.40 earnings per share, or about 11 percent of his fiscal 2013 EPS estimate of $48.46.



    A 40% margin means it is going to be a fairly expensive TV, yet he is predicting it will sell around 11.5 million (5% of 230 million) in its first year which is about four times as many units as the AppleTV2 sold in 12 months.



    I am still not seeing why these people expect an Apple HDTV to do so much better than the existing AppleTV.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stationwagon268 View Post


    I haven't read a TON comments about the HDTV thing, but had a thought. This may have been covered before. But, with the idea of partnering, what if they subsidize the iTV purchase as cell phone carriers do with the iPhone? For example, sign a 2 year contract with Comcast and get a 50" iTV for $599....



    Thoughts?



    Wouldn't work so great in the US. Here cable companies can basically own the rights to a whole market. Say like here where I live in Holllywood. Time Warner bought the rights about 5 years ago and I had no choice but to switch from Comcast to TWC. Because legally Comcast couldn't offer service in my area anymore. The only plus for me was that TWC had to honor our contracts and I was on a broadcast only plan with Comcast that gave me just the Big 5 for like $8 a month. TWC didn't have that kind of plan but they had to continue what I was on as part of the switch over.



    But if Apple goes with Comcast I'm out as is a big chuck of LA. Or if they go with Time Warner, other areas are out.



    Frankly I can't really see them doing it because it might cut into iTunes sales. If anything I think they would go to the networks and studios directly and try to replace the cable companies via some kind of subscription rental plan, lower buy prices etc.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Why would Comcast want to sell a TV when they could just sell a set top box? Comcast and Apple will want you stay on that same Video 1 input on the TV so making it easier to switch to your Blu-ray player or whatever isn't in their best interest.



    What you do with your tv only matters if you are a Nielsen viewer. Otherwise who cares cause you aren't in the counts. Apple would actually want to make it easier to access whatever via the box so you never have to change inputs. The little black box could act as a kind of receiver. Hook up an "Apple TV compatible" blu-ray player to it and the same remote could be used to fire up your blu-ray, control it etc. It's just another column on the screen.



    The cable companies already have your money and will even if you don't watch a single show, just as long as you are willing to keep paying for service. Even if Apple does fire up some monthly fee program you still need bandwidth and that often comes from the same company. so if you kill your cable, they will find ways to get it from you as an ISP



    (that said, I agree with the notion that the cable companies won't see any reason to actually assist in this game because when have they ever done the consumer smart move)
  • junkdrop1junkdrop1 Posts: 48member
    Just start building big iPad screens and plug in the current Apple TV, and you're good to go.



    Why would Apple get involved in anything if it can't make mark-up?



    J
  • dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    A 40% margin means it is going to be a fairly expensive TV, yet he is predicting it will sell around 11.5 million (5% of 230 million) in its first year which is about four times as many units as the AppleTV2 sold in 12 months.



    I am still not seeing why these people expect an Apple HDTV to do so much better than the existing AppleTV.



    Your point is taken, but at the same time I understand what this analyst is trying to accomplish. With all of the talk about Apple entering the TV market, he is taking a stab at estimating how much they might make if they could capture a modest proportion of the existing market at Apple's current margins. I think everyone recognizes that it's a wild guess. Nothing else is possible now.
  • nhtnht Posts: 3,019member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    If they go satellite, I believe they get out of local franchise issues. But just the same, they'd face some really high hurdles, some from regulators and even more from the networks. I'm remembering what a massive arm wrestle it was to get local programming carried on satellite.



    I am hoping, no begging, that Apple figures out how to rationalize the TV industry. The way it is now is a total mess. I just don't see how they do it. But then if it was easy to conceptualize, somebody would have done it by now.



    Doing so (rationalizing the TV industry) would be worth billions in revenues.



    Doing so may cost billions in CAPEX.



    That $97B can drop in a hurry.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by junkdrop1 View Post


    Just start building big iPad screens and plug in the current Apple TV, and you're good to go.



    Why would Apple get involved in anything if it can't make mark-up?



    You'll want to not post nonsensical, blatantly wrong stuff like this. We already have over 20 anti-Apple folk here; we don't really need another.
Sign In or Register to comment.