or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Analyst says Apple working on 'Smart TV' prototype in bid for living room
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Analyst says Apple working on 'Smart TV' prototype in bid for living room - Page 3

post #81 of 132
Two reasons Apple should sell its own flat panel TV:
1) No other manufacturer is selling just one good model of TV;
2) No other manufacturer provides a clean, 6-button remote interface.
post #82 of 132
[QUOTE=Champ;1835525]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?

If Apple wants to innovate in the living room then buying a cable co. might be the ticket. The cable co. free set boxes are stifling innovation.\

Can you imagine that... a Cable Company with a high customer satisfaction rating.

Oh wouldn't you miss visiting the friendly local Cable store * to pick up or exchange your cable box?

* with the bullet-proof glass and pass-through drawers... it conjures up the vision of a prison -- except you don't know whether you're on the inside or the outside.


Seriously, Comcast has a market cap of about $52 billion... how many major cable companies are there?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #83 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

But the guys from Panasonic, Samsung and LG just look so dang happy!

That is future I DON'T want to live in.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #84 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Sadly, they could never call it iTV, that's taken

Never say never with Apple. If offered enough money iTV would play ball, just like Ping did.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #85 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one.

Comparing an Apple Branded Television to an Apple car or an Apple fridge is clearly missing the point. The all-in-one TV is heading towards the category of phones, whereby Apple pretty much had no choice by to eventually make a phone - because phones would eventually replace iPods. If Apple doesn't do a super all-in-one TV someone else will, and Apple will lose the living room to some other company. And we all know Apple doesn't want to lose the living room.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #86 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.

I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.

The holy grail for the living room, as I see it, is a living room in the future with one physical remote. Not a universal remote, but 1 simple remote connected to a TV that does everything a regular person would want to in a simple manner with zero setup. That's the promise of an Apple all-in-one. It reminds me a lot of the phone market, where the built-in software is crap and really no one loves their TV. This market is ripe for the picking for Apple. They do great software, they have content, the want all your devices to connect, they love to be in control, they want the living room, and they like simplicity. It's pretty much perfect for Apple. The only difficult thing for them to do is to provide a high-quality all-in-one TV product for a price "millions" are willing to pay for it. I see the whole thing as a game-changer.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #87 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...

Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons.

As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here.

Hope you don't mind me cutting down on your quote to save space.

You make some very valid points. For myself, yes, I would willingly pay a premium for a TV with Apple design. As I said, when I've been looking for a TV there are a lot of choices, many with first class picture quality, but speaking for myself, considering how the living room is in many respects dominated by the TV, it matters to me what it looks like when it's turned off.

I think you're right about the cable companies not wanting to change the rules of the game, but that's why I specifically mentioned Dish Network. Surely one of the smaller players would be willing to work with Apple as a route to significantly increase market share?

Totally agree with you about gaming though. The new Apple TV could be a whole lot more if they opened it up for apps. The Wii showed that you don't need to compete with Sony and Microsoft in a spending money competition when designing hardware, and Apple TV could easily do the same, in my opinion. If games on the iPhone have proven nothing else, it is that there is a huge market for simple games.
post #88 of 132
Your average computer is a commodity low cost low profit item. Apple, however, doesn't compete in that arena. It competes in the high end category. Further, Apple is a smart company. If it releases a TV it will be competitive on price with higher end TVs, and it will offer something those TVs do not.

It is like the iPad, competitors are having trouble competing with Apple because 1) it has tied up the LCD panels, and 2) it has obtained a good price on components because it can prepay.

I for one need a new TV, but will hold out until at least the end of next year because I am hoping Apple will release one. So, yes, I would buy an Apple TV because I know it wouldn't e your average commodity product.

You are also assuming an Apple Television will do the same thing as a Apple TV box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

As many have said here, building a TV is a low margin, commoditized business. Have you noticed that "Premium" TV brands are not the best sellers (especially in times of recession). Unless they can offer something radically different, I will agree with most people here and say that Apple will most certainly not rebrand a Samsung panel with an Apple TV chip inside. Would you exchange your current TV for such a product for the cost of a new TV (plus "Apple tax") or simply purchase an AppleTV box? Most people would choose option B.

Someone mentioned licensing AirPlay. I think that would be smart if they can get the TV manufacturers to go along.
post #89 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.

You are indeed the great oracle, prescient in all matters. Sorry, I forgot myself.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #90 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You are indeed the great oracle, prescient in all matters. Sorry, I forgot myself.

I'm not. The most solid prediction is simply the obvious one.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #91 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You're household is totally typical

Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.

We currently have 3 TV's:

-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom

Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)

One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal


We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode

Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)

* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.


This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).

We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.


So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...


What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).

The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.

The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.


Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political

But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.

We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...

The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.

As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.

Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal


I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.

If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.

For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).

We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.

The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...

Quote:
...To Dawson Town came Percy Brown from London on the Thames.
A pane of glass was in his eye, and stockings on his stems...

And he can explain what it means!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #92 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I'm not. The most solid prediction is simply the obvious one.

Because Apple has always done the obvious thing. How silly of me.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #93 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price. [...]

Nah. Sure, analysts make crazy predictions to generate publicity. But not for Apple. They do it to promote themselves. Every one of them is trying to become the next "rock star" of the stock analysis world.

If an analysts makes a crazy prediction and it ends up being correct, they're golden. Brokerage firms will pay them for their "research" if they're independent. Or if they already work for a firm, they'll ask for a raise when their firm gets more clients.

And guess what. Nothing bad happens to analysts when their predictions are wrong. Nobody remembers their crazy claims from two years ago. And anyway, analysts are constantly getting it wrong trying to predict what Apple will be doing 2 or more years from now. Bad predictions just get lost in the noise.

The other thing stock analysts try to do is to put a spin on Apple news, in an attempt to manipulate AAPL stock up or down. They could do that because they have a long or short position on AAPL, respectively. Or maybe their firm has a long or short position on AAPL.

It's glaringly obvious that analyst A wants the stock to go up and analyst B wants it to go down. Analyst A will say "Apple is planning a great new thing, and all their existing things are going to sell better too because the competition is a year behind." Analyst B will say "Apple will face stiff competition in the XYZ market because of Brand X's upcoming thing, and Apple's old thing is producing a smaller percentage of Apple's profits."

Thorough reporting compels the author to reveal whether an analyst has a long or short position on AAPL stock. If you don't see a sentence near the end of the article with that info, you'd better look for traces of spin in the article itself.

No matter what, AAPL is one of the most heavily spun, manipulated, and hyped stocks out there. Just watch AAPL at the end of each quarter. Occasionally, for no apparent reason, the stock will suddenly drop just before the quarterly announcement. Not because of any bad news, not because the overall market is down. Just because some mysterious entity sold a huge amount of AAPL stock.

My guess is that some deep-pocket investor with a short position was willing to bribe a major shareholder to sell AAPL. To minimize the shorter's losses. And/or the major shareholder who sold tipped off a buddy looking to accumulate AAPL at a slightly lower price. In 3... 2... 1... sell.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #94 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Because Apple has always done the obvious thing. How silly of me.

With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #95 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.

Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.

So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #96 of 132
I remember jobs introducing the first iPhone. He said the killer app for phones was "making telephone calls" and yet most in the audience didn't even use their contacts list bc one had to drill down into the menu options.

I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).

Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.

They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.
post #97 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.

So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.

Ok. Ok.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #98 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I remember jobs introducing the first iPhone. He said the killer app for phones was "making telephone calls" and yet most in the audience didn't even use their contacts list bc one had to drill down into the menu options.

I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).

Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.

They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.

There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.

I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.

With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.

In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.

That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?

Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.

PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?
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 #99 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?

I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?

i thought so too...

if you look at the history of TV's, you'll see that when new Tech comes out (or the best model in the range) it typically looks comparative to what Apple sells products at as a target price point. But then they (other manuf's) radically reduce the prices to less than 50% over the course of a year or two, and the rest of the market follows.

Historically, Apple doesn't do that with their pricing. They lock in prices at a set target, and many many years will pass before they change. Look at the iMac as the prime example. The first iMac (1999) base price was $1,299. 12 years later, the Base model iMac is $1,199. Granted, the base price did increase between then...my point being that Apple looks at what people are willing to pay for their products and locks that price down.

Same goes with the iPod Classic. It's been $249 for many years, at least 6 from what I can dig up. Sure, Gen 1 was $399, but then Gen 3 started at $299 and that remained the starting price until 2005.

For an Apple iTV to work, Apple would serious have to lower their profit margins after Gen 1 to stay competitive. Look at the 42" LCD TV as a perfect example. The first iterations, you couldn't get one for less than $2400. Now you can get a good one for around $900, and sometimes even less than that. Apple would never do that.

With so much competition in the TV market, Apple couldn't possibly compete the way Sony, LG, Samsung, etc. do. They would have to sell this whole iTV for the price of their current Cinema Display (27" - $999). Anything above that, and it would sit as a "Niche" product, nothing like the iPod/Touch/Phone/Pad is today.

Not to mention the fact that TV's now days have all the same stuff that the Apple TV has now, including an equivalent version of the iTunes Store, just with Amazon or Netflix or Hulu built-in.
post #100 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.

I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.

With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.

In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.

That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?

Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.

PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?

All good points, solipsism. Very thoughtful, as usual!

I would just add two things. 1. Job's summed the TV problem(s) as a " go to market" dilemma because, as you describe, the fractured nature of the content providers and regional cable/network companies bent on protecting their turf. And 2. I would consider a full-size AppleTV with built-in ATV, Apple interface, App store, games, etc., "Magical" and a true pleasure to use instead of the current craptastic interfaces I'm currently using. I guess "magical" is a relative term!

Best and enjoyed your comments.
post #101 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.

We currently have 3 TV's:

-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom

Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)

One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal


We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode

Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)

* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.


This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).

We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.


So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...


What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).

The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.

The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.


Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political

But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.

We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...

The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.

As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.

Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal


I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.

If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.

For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).

We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.

The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...



And he can explain what it means!

.

Warms my heart, Dick to read this.

Well before iPads and Macs...I used to get the little workbooks you could buy at supermarkets for say, 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc., and along with a set of magic markers that smelled like various fruits, at bedtime my daughter and I would do the next grade level workbooks. She would choose the "fragrance" and work the problems. I did this because it exposed her to the math and reading she would be encountering the next year. At five, we were looking under a microscope at already dead insect's wings, eyes and legs (I couldn't bring myself to kill them!) At seven, I got a footlong frog and dissecting kit from a University Lab supplier and along with my father (chemistry major) dissected the frog on a Saturday afternoon. At nine we built a plastic, 3' B-52 together and painted it pink and hung it up in her room! The model was for three-dimensional thinking. Something girls aren't really exposed to. At eleven, taught how to throw a football with a perfect spiral!

Now 26, she is entering her 3rd year of Med school. She's a dream!

Best and great job, Dick!
post #102 of 132
About 70% of US households have a flatscreen TV. Demand for flatscreens is now soft enough to force manufacturers to speed up their price cuts. New features like 3D and LED backlighting aren't going to indefinitely support higher prices for the top-end models.

The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.

ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.

It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.
post #103 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcar View Post

About 70% of US households have a flatscreen TV. Demand for flatscreens is now soft enough to force manufacturers to speed up their price cuts. New features like 3D and LED backlighting aren't going to indefinitely support higher prices for the top-end models.

The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.

ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.

It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.

Good points Kcar. But I can see Apple bringing a lot to the table. I mean, after all, look at the effort and thought they have put into the redesign of something as mundane as their keyboard, mouse and trackpad (and aluminum remote, for that matter).

I could see them treating the TV as they have treated the iMac. Make it thin, elegant, large screen, great interface, all-in-one and no wires except for the one power cable, of course.

I've said it here often enough, the current ATV is well worth the price of admission if nothing more than having all your photos streamed to your flat screen TV with some light jazz playing in the background. All my friends are extremely impressed and mesmerized by it. Make sure you have some photos of your friends in there. They seem to really enjoy seeing photos of themselves for some reason.

The all-in-one Apple HDTV would be worth the price of admission just to have a decent remote designed by Apple that the TV would come with. Possibly an Apple aluminum, wireless game controller, too.

Imagine walking into your living room and all your photos and video are automatically streamed to you TV.
Best!
post #104 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muncie View Post

Two reasons Apple should sell its own flat panel TV:
1) No other manufacturer is selling just one good model of TV;
2) No other manufacturer provides a clean, 6-button remote interface.

Bingo!
post #105 of 132
I bet it will be "smart". You will have to have Apple ID account and credit card linked to it plus mandatory Internet access in order to turn on.

Something similar in logic to Apple TV gen. 2
post #106 of 132
And yes.... remote control is the most important thing in TV set
post #107 of 132
First, I don't think apple will introduce a panel until ridiculously thin led tv can rival the picture quality of a plasma. It's close but not quite there. Sorry to offend anyone about is. Apple loves thin.

Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.

Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.

Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.

The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.

Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.
post #108 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

And yes.... remote control is the most important thing in TV set

So glad you are not working for Apple. What a facile comment!

PS. Look it up!
post #109 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny-boy View Post

First, I don't think apple will introduce a panel until ridiculously thin led tv can rival the picture quality of a plasma. It's close but not quite there. Sorry to offend anyone about is. Apple loves thin.

Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.

Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.

Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.

The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.

Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.

A couple of questions I have are:

° How many people would never buy a computer beyond the most basic PC?

° How many of those people love their TV and have a reasonably broad pipe outside the home?

The answers would probably be demographically quite distinct (or not) but might give an indication of the potential for AppleTV as a viable business. Removing the notion of a computer from the equation might be quite compelling.

The musings of a casual observer. \
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #110 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's amazing how so many people seem to know exactly what "makes sense" for Apple to do, or not do, in the TV market. The problem is, I remember when many customers were wondering why Apple wasn't making a PDA, because it was so wrong to cede that market to others. Just one example of the conventional wisdom being wrong.

Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.

Today Apple has a near monopoly of the PDA market.
The iPod Touch is the only PDA I still see people using.
post #111 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

I bet it will be "smart". You will have to have Apple ID account and credit card linked to it plus mandatory Internet access in order to turn on.

Something similar in logic to Apple TV gen. 2

The wink implies that none of these conditions are true for the Apple TV, then?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #112 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price.
Perhaps it is because I am not an analyst but I do not see how an Apple branded TV could see ever the light of day. Seriously, it is getting old.

The Apple TV is the right strategy for the living room as it works with existing TV sets and serves the intended purpose: to enable the consumption of iTunes content. They can definitely improve on it (2 thumbs up for adding Netflix support but what about Apple TV Apps?) but it cannot be a better product if it were simply integrated with the TV panel.

Let's remember that Apple entered the smartphone and tablet markets because their offerings were disruptive. They were groundbreaking innovations. The Apple TV in its current form is not a game changer and only proved to be a success after a significant price reduction. That says a lot: consumers are not interested to spend a lot of money to get iTunes content on their TV sets.

Unless these highly paid analysts have something insightful that they are not sharing, an Apple branded TV is not a good idea. Apple is better off focusing on its core competencies.

Core competencies like music and video delivery devices and systems? Duh? Does perhaps an advanced TV fit into this category which primarily relies on the internet and the cloud and a beautifully integrated easy to use and intuitive consumer interface? Me thinks so.
post #113 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital_Guy View Post

I think Apple needs to buy Comcast. The Cisco RNG-100 box and software is worse than Windows 95. It's actually on par with Windows 3. Apple needs to quit dabbling its toes in the water, and get serious about the living room.

How about buying Netflix and make it the I tunes of video and a game changer ?
Netflix is only valued at ???what 11 billion or so ? I think and are also getting targeted by the "haters"- would make a good marriage and another game changer for us little people-and BTW I would be at the front of the line to buy an apple TV in the meantime....another thought...would love those two to get together and kick some corporate legacy ass ! The legacy corps have had it too long and have gotten too greedy and full of themselves ...time to get some heels broken. You know Steve J. is not doing it for the $$$- he wants to change the game---Got My vote !
post #114 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Today Apple has a near monopoly of the PDA market.
The iPod Touch is the only PDA I still see people using.

I guess that you didn't get my point.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #115 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

...

PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? ...

Anyone in the USA who has ever subscribed to cable or satellite TV knows that it is true in spades. What is more cable breaks down to individual local franchises. In Podunk, the cable company is ShadyPalm. Your neighbor across the street lives in East Podunk. Over there, the cable franchise is owned by Speedydata. Different channel lineups; different price structure; different equipment. Many franchises have multiple cable franchises. And even when the same company holds the franchise in adjacent localities, there are likely to be differences between them. There are exceptions such as Bright House in Central Florida. However, Bright House is just that--the exception.

Having said that, each cable company has a Federal mandate to support CableCard a PC card-sized cable decoder that you may insert into the CableCard slot of your digital TV. This does the same job as the STB. However, when my cable provider started offering HD channels, no one in the company office even knew what CableCard was. It is my understanding that this situation has since changed. However, the flipside is that many HDTV set manufacturers don't offer CableCard slots on their TVs.

An Apple HDTV could feature CableCard slots. and with its clout force the cable providers to support this Federally-mandated feature. However, CableCard does not provide DVR functionality. If you ever had a DVR, then you will never want to live without it.

With the iPhone, Apple worked with a single company that used a single set of standards to revolutionize the mobile phone. TV is immeasurably more complex. That is just on the provider side.

On the customer side, this bleating for an Apple HDTV seems driven by the college crowd who watch TV in their dorm rooms on their computers. For people who have more space, it is a much tougher sell. As I write this, I am watching my HDTV on a 37" Sharp while I write this post on my Power Mac G5. In my apartment, I have only three TVs. There was a time when there was one TV per household. As portables and tabletops became popular, TVs proliferated into the bedroom, den, garage, and elsewhere. Today, many homes have several TVs in single rooms and at least one TV in almost every room. It's Max Headroom without the static.
post #116 of 132
I thought steve said during the All Things-D conference, that making a TV is a pain... because the industry is too fragmented? something about the industry doesn't have a universal standard for broadcasting... so their approach of Apple TV and iTunes is the best at the moment... correct me if am wrong!
post #117 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbati View Post

I thought steve said during the All Things-D conference, that making a TV is a pain... because the industry is too fragmented? something about the industry doesn't have a universal standard for broadcasting... so their approach of Apple TV and iTunes is the best at the moment... correct me if am wrong!

You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.

As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.

Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.
post #118 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.

As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.

Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.

It sounds like that even if Apple does make a TV with an AppleTV inside, there will still be input switching for Blu-ray players, cable boxes, DVRs and any other input devices one might attach. I dont see the gain here for Apple.

Having less wires and components is nice, but since you dont move your TV around having it be a dumb display isnt a bad thing. Set it and forget it. Perhaps what Apple is working on is with CableCards or an AppleTV that is an intermediary device, like a receiver for your stereo system, that all other input devices plug into. Having said that, that in itself could also be within a TV, but I still dont see the reason to build a TV when the size, and types run a wide gamet and are not easy to store in bulk at Apple Stores.
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 #119 of 132
Let's consider the content model of Apple's existing devices:

iPod-- iTunes. You can put any appropriately encoded content you want into iTunes, but the iTunes music store is the main channel. Apple was able to establish this model because there wasn't a robust way of buying digital music prior to the iTunes music store.

Macs-- You can buy any compatible software you want, but Apple has recently opened the Mac App Store, so they're interested in moving the Mac towards the iOS model. You can purchase, download or stream any compatible media, but that basically entails using a browser or purchasing/renting optical media. Again, the iTunes store is clearly Apple's preferred media delivery system.

iOS devices-- App Store for apps, similar to iPod for media. Same as Mac for dl or streaming media, sans Flash.

For Macs and iOS devices, "content" is mostly about applications with media being an enhancement. For the iPod, it's all content, with close coupling to the iTunes Store.

So what about television? All content, with no way to privilege iTunes. Nobody wants a TV that's mostly an iTunes portal. They want cable, broadcast, connected optical devices, on demand services and streaming services.

Apple has never made anything like that, a device that's primarily a client for content that isn't served by Apple. That's why I think they never will-- 95% of what a TV does has nothing to do with Apple, and there's no way for Apple to change that. They can't bring the iTunes store model to cable or broadcast TV, not unless the content providers do an abrupt about face and allow vastly more access than they are now.

Baring that, a television is deeply antithetical to how Apple does business.
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 #120 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?

I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?

...or that broadcast television is dead and watching tv shows online is so much better... or that DVR capability conflicts with iTunes sales.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Analyst says Apple working on 'Smart TV' prototype in bid for living room