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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.\

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

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

Originally Posted by jd_in_sb

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

Originally Posted by replicant

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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

Originally Posted by replicant

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.

Originally Posted by replicant

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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

Originally Posted by Ireland

You're household is totally typical

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

Originally Posted by Ireland

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

Originally Posted by replicant

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

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by christopher126

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.

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

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?

Originally Posted by solipsism

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?

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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!

.

Originally Posted by kcar

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.

Originally Posted by Muncie

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.

Originally Posted by maciekskontakt

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

Originally Posted by benny-boy

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by maciekskontakt

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

Originally Posted by replicant

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.

Originally Posted by Digital_Guy

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.

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

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

Originally Posted by solipsism

...

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? ...

Originally Posted by abbati

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!

Originally Posted by Mr. Me

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.

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

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?