or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple positioned to introduce connected HDTV within 2-4 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple positioned to introduce connected HDTV within 2-4 years - Page 2

post #41 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

$9 a month Netflix and a $99 Roku is the cheapest way to get unlimited use streaming movies and TV shows right to your HDTV.

Anything not able to be streamed is available via DVD. Suck it up while you can, Jobs want's to put a end to Netflix really bad as it's undercutting iTMS.

...and at this Jobs/Apple will fail - quite resolutely if their Apple TV effort is any indication.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #42 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Where's Ireland?

I don't get it. You can get a er tv know for $1000. Why does Apple have to charge double of what eveyone else is selling. I've seen the newest Samsung 46 at 240hz for $1100 at Fry's and it was awesome. And also has Ethernet connections. Samsung have one of the best pictures IMHO.
post #43 of 137
Screen size is not a cookie cutter offering. I HAVE to have a 37" monitor because of the size of my custom enclosure (and the fact that the wife won't allow anything bigger.)
40" is still considered pretty small for anyone who seriously wants a movie experience, and its not like people are going to set up a second entertainment room just for the thrill of having an Apple branded TV.
The ultimate extension of this is that Apple would have to offer an entire line of TV sizes, and I just don't see that happening.
Plus, we're no longer in a time where a self contained TV makes any sense. You have components (including cable box/DVR, AppleTV, DVD... name your mix/match) and a monitor. They all age out technologically at different rates, and I'll be damned if I'm going to assure that I have to upgrade the whole lot just because one element (i.e. the monitor) becomes broken or obsolete.

Nope, don't buy it.
post #44 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Where's Ireland?

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #45 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

$9 a month Netflix and a $99 Roku is the cheapest way to get unlimited use streaming movies and TV shows right to your HDTV.

Anything not able to be streamed is available via DVD. Suck it up while you can, Jobs want's to put a end to Netflix really bad as it's undercutting iTMS.

There is a lot of things under cutting iTMS. regular free TV, Hulu, youtube, windows media center etc... hell even Tivo might be cheaper in the long run.

Apple doesn't need to put an end to anything in order for iTMS to survive or succeed.
post #46 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mex4eric View Post

They would undoubtedly buy their panels from Samsung and replace much of the Samsung electronics with their own.

Great. So you'd be getting an $800 television for $2,000? Where do I sign up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mex4eric View Post

AppleTV++ and all content over the internet. No more cable. CableCos and Telcos will have to become good deliverers of internet and give up managing content.

This won't happen in 20-40 years, let alone 2-4.
post #47 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.
post #48 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Apple isn't catering to the crowd that is picking up $499 bargains at Wal-Mart.

Besides the iPad that's true.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #49 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's that country near Great Britain. (Sorry, hard to resist.)

This is a good market for Apple to enter, but it has to be amusing to see anyone claim know precisely how Apple will price a product that isn't even rumored to exist yet, and even if does, would not for another 2-4 years. Look at how much luck anyone had guessing the iPad's price, and that was when it was at least known to exist.

I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #50 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.

Neither am I.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #51 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't see it.
  1. TVs are updated in different cycles than the perhipeals they're usually connected to. TVs with optical drives have never been widely popular.
  2. There is no on-size-fits-all philosophy that will work with TVs. What if I want 20" version for the bacthroom, or 30" for bedroom, etc.
  3. Outside of size, there are just too many styles and types to fit too many home settings.
  4. The margins on TVs are typically thin.
  5. Apple will severely limit it's sales potential in this already difficult market by making a few models of TVs with AppleTV software built in. The best option seems to be an appliance that connects to any TV and/or a licensing deal with a company like LG for AppleTV add-on for their TVs, similar to HP's MediaSmart TVs.

You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... Whilst I'm sure set-up boxes are changed more often than TVs typically that won't be how Apple see's people using iTV.

Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

There's no way Apple will ever enter a commodity market like TV sets. There are already so many different producers, models etc., it would be ridiculous. I don't care about Apple mindshare, quality or visibility, they'd be swamped.

Imagine you're in Dec 2006. Now insert the words "mobile phones" in place of "TV sets".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.

Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.
post #52 of 137
Apple may sell one, I won't be buying. I am working out ways to pay LESS to the cable companies, satelite companies and telco's - not more.

I don't see an advantage worth the 100% to 130% premium on a 'normal' HDTV + additional monthly recurring charge.
post #53 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.

Click wheels are dying breed. The bottom of the remote could have a touch area for flicking up down left and right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.

The viewing angle on LED (which is actually LCD) is said to be 178ยช, but the reality is it distorts. Plasma is far superior for the modern living room in terms of real world use. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple using LCD and arguing it's batter through aggressive marketing. I know thing, if the TV panel itself isn't better than my Kuro I won't be buying it regardless of the extra stuff it does.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #54 of 137
I have an Apple TV and love it...it was worth the price of admission just because it's the best way to present photos with no-commercial internet radio!

Used to rent a lot of movies thru ATV, but now with a RedBox on my running route and an iPhone App (Re. Availability and reservations.), I can rent 5 movies from RedBox for the price of one from iTunes.

Sorry Apple...the Movie & TV Industries don't want to play ball!

They would like to have more and more of their 'products' pirated rather than give into the proven Apple model (Think Music here).

Best

Ps. Redbox is going to have a digital service very soon...and it will be way cheap! Blockbuster and Netflix are screwed because there is no bottom!
post #55 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.

I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #56 of 137
Of course, one thing that is truly not available on-line is NFL football and viewers will still need broadcast TV to receive this (and many other sports). And sports clearly sell a lot of TVs.

Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.
post #57 of 137
you want cheap satalite? Just buy the equipment outright and add it to a friends account. No extra charge/mo for them and free tv for you (besides the cost of equipment).

Equipment cost: Dish Network DVR $300 (ebay)____Dish Network Dish 1000 $65 (Ebay)

All you need is a good friend
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #58 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.

Oh so it's Prince taking his usual journalistic leaps of faith.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #59 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by rare comment View Post

Of course, one thing that is truly not available on-line is NFL football and viewers will still need broadcast TV to receive this (and many other sports). And sports clearly sell a lot of TVs.

Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.

Yep, the only reason and I mean only reason, I pay $100/mo for cable HDTV is for Formula One. If I could get it somehow somewhere else, I would drop cable in a heartbeat!
post #60 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... [...] Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.

1) People typically buy a completely new computer system, not just a component, they don't do this with TVs which have a much longer update cycle than PCs.

2) What user experience are they failing to address by not supplying the home entertainment monitor? We're talking about a system using a 10-foot user interface that works great for DVRs, cableboxes, sat receivers, optical drives, and media extenders. There is just no argument to say Apple would be more successful by making 3 or 4 TVs that are to fit everyone's needs.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #61 of 137
I can't see Apple selling their own TVs. However, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that they could allow manufacturers to embed AppleTV technology into their sets while continuing to produce standalone boxes for those who prefer to go that route.
post #62 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdjohn3 View Post

I can't see Apple selling their own TVs. However, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that they could allow manufacturers to embed AppleTV technology into their sets while continuing to produce standalone boxes for those who prefer to go that route.

That makes the most sense to me, too.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #63 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post


Imagine you're in Dec 2006. Now insert the words "mobile phones" in place of "TV sets".

except...
1.) Smart Phones were not a mature market.
2.) Smart Phones were not a comodity product.
3.) Smart Phones are not low margin.

The equivelent thing to this would be a smart phone, that costs $750(with 2 year contract), plus the phone contract, plus the data contract, plus another 'content' contract costing the same as the phone+data contract. [extrapolating from a RIM smart phone priced at $299 in 2006 * 250%, a cable subscription, a highspeed internet connection and apples content subscription]

This idea = stupid
post #64 of 137
I pay over $100 a month for Cable here (NYC) and I still have to watch adverts every few minutes. Having a paid subscription without adverts has to be the way to go. With DVR's, the advertising revenue has to be dropping significantly, in the next few years I cannot see how the current model can continue. I refuse to watch adverts now and I am not alone!

Paying Apple a monthly subscription for their TV content would be a great solution, the current pay per show is a little too much if you want to cancel the cable TV completely. TV shows with no adverts and rent/ buy movies when needed would be entertainment bliss!

As for the Apple TV, putting an Mac Mini under your current tv gets you about the same thing, it works well for me anyway. Apple providing the TV itself maybe a step too far as it would be a small market with too many risks. Do people still buy DVD's/ Blue Ray? They are going the way of CD's of which I have not bought one for 5 years now.
post #65 of 137
Unlikely
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #66 of 137
I would never buy one. I have my PC hooked up to my plasma TV and it allows all of the same functions (and then some) at a fraction of the cost.

How much storage space would this thing have? How good a graphics card? What games could I actually play on it?

I'm all for getting rid of the cable, but this is just silly. Might be good for grandma though...
post #67 of 137
Is this an early April Fool's joke?
$2000 is the same price as your choice of plasma TV plus a Mac Mini and an HDTV tuner with DVR software. The difference is that the Mini will run what you want it to. Given Apple's self-destructive obsession with closed systems, I wouldn't dare pay for such an expensive device. The Apple TV box is a failure because Apple locks out everything that would make it a great product - DVR software, Amazon VOD, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu, etc.
post #68 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post


Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.

Agree. I just prefer the picture quality of plasma over LCD. But LCD has gotten much better and the difference isn't so great anymore on good quality LCD sets.
post #69 of 137
As cool as it would be to see an Apple HDTV, I seriously doubt it.

The market is just too cut throat. The PC market is too but Apple has been in that market since the beginning so they have got a segement of their own.

Just do not think they could pull it off in this market.


And they got to get off the pot with Apple TV if they are even thinking about this.
post #70 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdjohn3 View Post

I can't see Apple selling their own TVs. However, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that they could allow manufacturers to embed AppleTV technology into their sets while continuing to produce standalone boxes for those who prefer to go that route.

It's a slight possibility, but the chances of this happening are razor thin.

Apple uses content to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. It is far more likely for Apple to sell a set-top box (like AppleTV), rather than license the software (we all know how keen Apple is to do the latter), which is a completely different business model.

As pointed out earlier, the buying cycle for TVs is considerably longer than computers or small consumer electronics.

The hardware-software integration in Apple products is very tight. They would essentially give that up if they licensed AppleTV OS. What happens if a hardware partner specs out a underpowered TV that provides a lousy user experience of the Apple-branded AppleTV service or ships a confounding remote (like Sony's)? That makes Apple look bad.

Giving up tight control doesn't sound particularly Apple-like.
post #71 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Oh so it's Prince taking his usual journalistic leaps of faith.

The actual quote from Munster's investment note was, "We believe Apple is uniquely positioned to combine these elements at competitive prices ($2,000) for an Apple-branded TV.

In the way of the 'net, this been turned instantly into "Apple is expected to offer a $2,000 TV."

The words are the same, only the meaning is different.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #72 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinmcmurtrie View Post

Given Apple's self-destructive obsession with closed systems...

AAPL closes at $228.30, and will be over $300 by end of year.
Give this "Apple is doomed because they're not 'open'" crap a rest.
The only ones who give a damned about 'open' is geeks and developers, who need to start realizing they serve customers, not themselves.
post #73 of 137
Wouldn't Apple be able to make an iOS driven Apple TV insanely small? Not sure what bulk a big screen, HD capable CPU would add, but beyond that they already have a pretty robust operating system that can run on phone sized hardware.

I'm just thinking in terms of licensing deals-- if Apple could reduce the Apple TV to a module the size of a couple of matchboxes, easily incorporated into existing chassises, and sell it to OEM TV manufacturers fro $100 or so, I would think that would be a tempting proposition.

I agree it would be fairly unApple like to partner that way, but to me it would make much more sense than trying to make their own TVs. Unless they could make them price and quality competitive with existing premium sets, and keep them that way as pricing in the industry changes.

I could see being tempted by a, say, $1000 40" LCD 1080p set (at current prices) with an improved Apple TV built in and some typical Apple cleverness brought to the menu screens and user interactions. Add in seamless, wireless integration with my laptop, phone and iPad and yeah, for sure.

But much over $1300 for that rig and we're looking at Apple HiFi/Bose territory, where Apple hasn't been all that successful.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #74 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

A full fledged Apple LCD Television makes no sense to me. You end of witha very small slice of a high end TV market, competing for razor thin margins with companies that will have greater variety and much better distribution.

Making a box - a better Apple TV makes a lot of sense. Let people pick whatever set they want and connect it to a better box leverages all the expertise Apple already has with none of the risk of the consumer television market.

If Apple brings down the price of the Apple TV to under $99 or $150, and adds a few features, it would be a home run.

Though in some sense it already is successful - based on estimates I read here, it has outsold all other similar devices combined (linksys, dlink, netgear, etc, etc)

TV margins are very thin and the high end is crowded, but the equipment (iPhone, iPod, iPad) are just meant to facilitate the purchase of music, movies, books and such. That is why Sony bought the movie business...to control the content. That, my friends, is the biggest obstacle that Apple faces moving forward.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #75 of 137
DIdn't I tell y'all- the SONY of the millennium.
YAWN.

Where's my i5 13" MBP????
post #76 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.

If it's Apple expect $3,000 minimum and without an HDMI port!
post #77 of 137
Ain't gonna happen. No Apple-branded TV. Market's too mature. Too many players.
Hmm, brevity feels good.
post #78 of 137
There are so many things wrong with this article I don't know where to start.

For one, there's no way an Apple Television (I'm'a call it "iTV") would eliminate those devices... Unless iTunes had EVERY SINGLE TV show from EVERY SINGLE broadcaster, some will inevitably still require a cable package from Comcast or whomever... It won't replace any game console because it will not carry the titles that millions of people buy Wiis, XBoxes, and Playstations for. Having said that, you won't be able to eliminate your audio tuner as you'll still have multiple sources of input... not to mention that it's what makes surround sound possible at all, which is a necessity for anyone who wants a better-than-average home-entertainment system.

Secondly, $2000????? In 2 to 4 years, $2000 better get me more than a measly 40-incher... I saw a really nice Samsung (had to be ~40") for $800-something at Target this week. I smell serious shenanigans in Gene's numbers...

Third, there's nothing this "$2000" device can do that the existing AppleTV device can't be enabled to do, very easily. Even DVR capabilities would be a snap as long as it had a live TV throughput and an HDD that was worth something.

I will readily admit that there's a lot of room to consolidate the functions of a TV, but Apple should strive to be the hub into which it all integrates - and combine with iTunes connectivity, and DVR functionality. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

This device makes no sense.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #79 of 137
Another one falls for it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #80 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

DIdn't I tell y'all- the SONY of the millennium.
YAWN.

Where's my i5 13" MBP????

It's better than the listening to a grumpy ass like you. Moan moan moan moan moan.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple positioned to introduce connected HDTV within 2-4 years