Evidence points toward Apple releasing HDTV this year - report - Page 4

If they only made an add on for HDTVs that was $100-$200 so I could use it on my existing set...oh wait...they do...with a better UI, more content, better integration with iDevices, etc.

Folks have mentioned aTV like a dozen times in this thread and no one yet has pointed to anything (beyond camera placement for facetime) as ANY sort of reason to make a "smart hdtv" vs a aTV/HDTV combo. There are all sorts of downsides and currently no upsides.

There is no way I would buy an Apple television. I already have a perfectly good monitor. If Apple wants me to buy its TV offerings, they will have to be devices that plug into what I've already got. They have the right idea with the current Apple TV. I don't want to spend an extra $1500+ to get a new screen that may or may not be better than what I have, then find a couple years down the line that there is this great new upgrade that comes with its own new $1500+ monitor.

The Microsoft "Surface"???? Never heard of it till now. Aside from the XBOX I've always said Microsoft couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag.... But the surface does seem to be much more than just a large touch screen tablet or PC. I watched the MS video and another video on Viddler. WOW! This is so unlike Microsoft. It's what I'd expect to see in a SciFi movie. Not only is it a leap in technology, but holy cow Batman... it comes from Microsoft.

Is it snowing in Hell?

You're right, of course. All the 'arguments' given by posters here for why Apple would make an Apple TV (display, that is, not the current 'hobby' product) fall well short of market reality. I am a bit surprised, having expected more and better reason from the regulars here. (Though some did manage to stay out of the 'anything Apple does succeeds' trap.)

Someone(s) have already given most of my answers, but I'll add:

Queuing up for a bailout package at the EU headquarters.

As for my comments below, they're not directly about an Apple TV, but they're factors that deserve consideration in Apple's thought process about how to become a major factor "in the Living Room" (and bedroom and back of the mini-van and....). Which I don't think could be accomplished with any one or two TV models with rapidly obselescing processors, but then, whadda I know (except more than the next quoted post)?


Rubbish.

1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player). Pages is a "nice" program, but it doesn't round-trip the world standard DOC and DOCX files worth a damn (and won't even save them as a native format). Apple is a peninsula, not an island, always connected to important partners, whether they're "co-opetition" partners like MS and Adobe or other types as noted below.

For example, the legions of small ISV's who've eschewed the much larger Win user base to make the thousands of delightful programs and utilities that leverage the potential of OS X. And others like the Mozilla and Chrome browsers (I can't believe Safari still - unless I've missed it - doesn't save sessions with complete tab histories).

2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?

3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?

4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days? Its two major acquisitions leading to the A5 are, I'm pretty sure, fabless. As far as I know, Apple no longer has a "Woz in the garage" building computers, iPods, iPads, ATV's, monitors or phones. Nor their components. (Tho' one exception I can think of in light of the Japanese disaster is that Apple Japan apparently does make batteries, so there may be others - but not much of the total.)

5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners. And cableco's are showing interest in being part of the phenomenon (via iPad apps), even as some of their own content partners balk.

6. And there are more interdependency bullet points I could make, but the point's already clear. So here's my two cents on Apple "making" TV's:

Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.

And all they need for that is a port and a modicum of handshaking software in the sets (if they need that). They probably already have an ATV 3 nearly ready, and with a reworking of the MacMini could offer a range of add-on boxes, some of which could also replace DVR's and offer a range of gaming experiences. Which millions would buy and millions would upgrade every year or two.

Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.

And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready. And that box could have a snap-in iOS hardware module which could be upgraded along with the boxes connecting to all the other TV's, so that Apple could make another $99 to $399 upgrade sale for those TV's as A6's, 7's etc. come out.

PS: Someone already answered this, but if anyone missed the answer, it should be hammered home that Jobs did NOT say PC's are dead. He said they're becoming the "trucks" of the industry. And trucks are still a great business to be in, especially when yours are the best selling and most profitable.

Listen to yourself. You've got people buying EXTRA TVs, instead of replacements. In this economy.

Comparing this to computer upgrades make just as little sense. People upgrade their computers because the old ones no longer do what they need. Sure, older models often get passed on to children or whatever, but most of them gather dust and eventually go in the trash.

TVs rarely go 'obsolete'. Color obsoleted B&W, HDTV obsoleted the tubes. Bigger screens (at the right price) also generally have provided a reason to upgrade. But aside from breakage, those are the main reasons people replace their TVs. You are, I notice, avoiding the heart of the matter: What is it about Apple TV that will obsolete HDTV? What is so compelling about this theoretical product that a consumer cannot get with his existing HDTV and an add-on box?

I keep asking, and I keep getting zero answers. Just insistence that 'you gotta believe' or some such rubbish.



These 'solutions' are beyond idiotic.

1) You cannot get a 'retina' display at a size bigger than an iPhone AT ANY PRICE. They do not exist. Idiot. (Or, you know, whatever's worse than 'idiot'.)

2) You can integrate your TV with iOS devices NOW. Apple doesn't have to build some sort of TV for this to happen.

Geeeeez.

I'm quite sure they dropped the price heavily within a month, refunded the difference to early buyers then within 12 months dropped it to $199. Then a year later offered a $99 version. Meanwhile globally it is often sold at $0 and not $199 on 2yr contract cycles.

It would've disrupting nothing if it was still only available at $600.

Analysts! What do they know? As daft an idea as this http://direct.motorola.com/hellomoto/rokr/

Excellent! A very thoughtfult response. In addition to what solipsism and a few others have written, it makes the argument against an Apple-branded standalone HDTV even more clear. There does seem to be much better ways for Apple to get their piece of the TV market. Thanks for your well-grounded "no-spin" post.

Thats gonna require alot of aluminum;-)

I cannot see the correlation between Mac market share having to directly do with Photoshop and MS Office. When Photoshop and MS Office can be used on a wide variety of computers.



That is the point of the iTunes ecosystem.


The wording of this question is confusing? Are you asking what percentage of the apps are driving the success of iOS? Or what percentage of iOS apps made by Apple drive the success of iOS?


Can you name an American computer company that actually physically manufactures its own computers?

You expecting Apple do build and run its own manufacturing facilities when no one else does?


What other mobile phone manufacturer doesn't need all of the world wide wireless partners?

You expect Apple to build and maintain a world wide wireless communications network when no one else does?


Apple is primarily a hardware company that creates its own software, software development platform and content distribution services to support its hardware.


Traditional broadcast and cable companies are all fighting to maintain that their business models and profits are not upset by a newer distribution model that they cannot directly control.


If Apple were to offer its own television Apple would want to offer its own unique content service. Apple would not collude with traditional broadcasters or cable television.

The majority of these entities would not agree to cooperate with Apple in doing anything radically different from what is already being done.

There smaller model could second as a bedroom mirror!


Nope... way too thick for an Apple design


No they won't make a TV. They'll make a SmartTV and they'll call it AppleTVc (the "c" for cloud)

Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:

1. Think of it more as a computer than a TV set. It will be multifunction in the designed and targeted ways Apple likes to add functionality. Emphasis on Facetime, since building in a camera to the panel in the right spot is important to the experience. Emphasis on apps and a new platform for app development. iTunes integration is obviously a big deal. It's a television set and a computer. For some people this could potentially be their only PC, just like any other iOS device.

2. Remote control will be a flat glass surface with either 0 or 1 buttons. You can also use your other iOS device for the remote control we've gotten used to with the Apple TV set top. I bet they'll have some slick voice control worked out as well. They will not use motion control, they have nothing invested in this and it's not their way to go all minority report on us. Let Microsoft flail around with Kinect.

3. I expect 3 models (at most) and for them to not only standardize on one technology but pick the best one that makes sense for Apple. This I believe will be LED LCD.

LED LCD is arguably higher quality than competing options. Yes some prefer plasma, and I think in any rational debate either is possible. Except LED LCD has the edge on weight and thickness, and this is too important to Apple. Only LED sets can be 1/2" thick or less. Jobs and his team can easily make the argument that a 240hz LED LCD set represents the best possible quality out there (this is a bit bogus but the argument can be made, and I am a plasma owner).

Costs are higher on the high end of LED LCD sets and this will go well in the perceived value and charging a high premium.

I expect them to streamline/simplify the choices, make the options crystal clear. The innards and features will be identical between sets they will only vary by size and cost. If 3 models, they'll go with 40, 50 and 60 because these are easily grasped numbers and common sizes for TV panels. If only 2 models, they'll go with 47 and 60.

4. As with everything Apple has been doing, is doing and will do, the point of this beast is to basically replace another Windows PC. Every time someone buys an ipod touch, iphone, mac or ipad, they are taking away another potential WinPC sale. It's not clear to the average person that this is what they're up to, but people have budgets and there is a reasonable limit to computer gear for most people. Once people scratch that itch, they may realize they don't need a WinPC... for anything.

5. Cost is anyone's guess really. TV prices today are a huge moving target and can shift dramatically within 6 months. Will they take the iphone gen1 route and charge a premium? Will they take the iPad route and offer people a deal for the money? Probably depend on how important it is for them to sell quantity.

6. It will not be 3D. There's no appreciable content for it, won't be anytime soon, and the technology is premature (some would say stillborn). Someday when its auto-stereoscopic and the content exists, sure. But not today or anytime in the next 2-3 years.

7. There will be one resolution, 1080p. By the time this ships, no other resolution will matter. Apple will also upgrade all iTunes content they can to 1080p at the same time (if you're wondering when THAT will happen, now you know). =)

8. It will not be for everyone, and if you're about to criticize my post out of some kind of nerd-rage self interest, it's not for you. I'm right, you're wrong, bookmark it.

I think that is where the fallacy lies.

• Why is it the “TV” and the entire TV center that Apple needs to enter?
• How does it benefit the use to merely have the AppleTV included to an HDTV but not have the cable/sat and/or DVR setup included, thus requiring switching inputs to access?
• Is this Apple branded TV going to ignore these popular methods for accessing content?
• What leverage does Apple have to force the networks to bypass their vast, guaranteed profits from local affiliates and cable/sat providers?
• Why not keep it separate until the entire system can be made into a device?
• Why not keep it separate so they can get more sales from a relatively low priced AppleTV that can be updated and repurchased frequently to allow for faster and better games and apps?
• Why not partner with multiple TV vendors to allow an integrated AppleTVs with multiple sizes ranging from the smallest and largest, not un-similiar to what Apple did with the iPhone instead of creating their own MNO or MVNO.

PS: Why has no one considered the added complexity of a camera on an HDTV compared to the typical stationary camera on a Mac or IDevice? The distance and location of a TV from the viewer’s face is more multifarious perhaps requiring a zoom and/or directional motor for specific placement.

They already make Apple TV and some of the best screens in the industry. So what's so crazy about them combining the two?

That alone isnt a reason.

Apple would want to build a platform that it directly controls. Apple would want to build its own content distribution infrastructure and not follow the standard cable/broadcast model of distribution.

Television studios have been fighting everyone who makes any attempt to deviate from the current cable/broadcast model of distribution.

Steve Jobs himself has complained about the television business model and Apple's trouble with their vision for AppleTV and is the reason he called it a hobby.


A TV is largely a passive device for viewing audio/video. I don't believe very many people have any desire for their television to become a computer.

You really should look up a dictionary or something, to understand what the phrase 'profit margin' means. Until then, it may be a good idea to try and not spout financial wisdom.

@solipsism... I think REC is more right than he is wrong. Both of you make sense though. However, IMO, I think Apple is really after an Interactive pseudo-TV experience. TV content would not be the main selling point.

Game playing with friends or others (maybe mobileMe users), all sorts of dedicated Apps, and Facetime as a social/family network and or business conferencing, projector etc. All connect to the Apple's cloud and ecosystem. Put this together with Apple's software expertise and it would be hard to beat. It would reinvent TV "usage" without fighting the TV/Movie Studios. But they'll soon come running to Apple for a piece of the action. I bet TWC and Cablevision (if they win their lawsuits) are just waiting for Apple to make its move at the focal point of the living room.

What you describe is already being attempted with little sign of success.

Google TV

Samsung Internet Television

Sony/Google TV

You have to acknowledge why these efforts are not very successful to understand what Apple would need to do to gain success. Beginning with the fact that few people desire to have Facebook and Twitter on their television.

When will this zombie die!

For Apple, there is almost as much profit in the AppleTV as there is in your average 42" LCD TV.

why in gods name would Apple, who has eschewed commodity products continuously, enter into a market who's margins are already thing and getting thinner?

Apple will some day release a 30+ or even 40+ inch iMac. But it will do so, because the iMac draws a premium [I paid over $2k for mine as an example].

People, in their right minds, won't pay $2000 for a 42" TV with embedded AppleTV. Not when a 42" TV costs you about $800 or less. And for Larger TV margins are plummeting because they are a commodity.

I own an AppleTV. At $99, it is a nice toy. I wish it did more, but it doesn't.

Apple would functionally give the TV screen away to realize the same net revenue it gets by selling you a $99 entertainment puck. Let it die.

Save for FaceTime all that can be served from the current AppleTV. A device that is considerably more affordable than an HDTV. A device that can be updated and re-purchased often. A device that will work with any monitor that accepts HDMI. Im just not seeing a business model that is more profitable than the AppleTV.

Ive even made mention of a device that has CableCard options, an Apple Home Server, directly or remotely attached that can be used a DVR, a passthrough (HDMI-input) on the AppleTV so you can use your current sat/cable setup with the AppleTV UI as the primary interface, deals with networks, and deals with TV vendors for incorporating the AppleTV into it. There has to be a path to profit. Where is it?

"Take your WORD for it?" Nowhere near good enough. FAIL.


Empty jargon that means nothing and tells me zip about WHY Apple thinks it will make a profit on this. FAIL.


Yeah, people will buy a new $1000-2000 TV because it has a camera on top. 'Cause it's not like they're built into, oh I don't know, everything ELSE they own at this point. Ow, my sides hurt from laughing. FAIL.


Which could be accomplished right now, via the existing AppleTV box. FAIL.


Yeah, there's no end of people ready to do their word processing and Photoshop work on their couch, using a screen across the room. BIG FAT FAIL.


:sigh: he's off his meds. FAIL.


"I'm right, you're wrong". Gee, who can argue with that kind of logic?

I'll tell you who: Anyone with half a brain. FAIL.

Apparently Apple disagrees with you.

Apple blew up the MP3 player market.
Apple blew up the digital music market.
Apple blew up the mobile phone market.
Apple blew up the laptop market.
Apple blew up the all-in-one desktop market.
Apple blew up the mediacentre/AppleTV/googleTV market (however young and small it is).
Apple blew up the tablet market.
Apple even blew up the way people BUY products with their huge stores that pull in the highest per square foot sales of any retail chain and their online store that ships custom built products in just 24 hours. Its unparalleled.

Not everything Apple does is a success (uhm, Ping), but they do have a history of some very big successes in markets that were previously very dominated by other very big players.

The TV market is big, growing, fragmented, and full of mediocre companies with mediocre products. Its ripe for plucking.

So can they or can’t they? You say they go on to agree with my point that not everything they do turns out to be a market success.

You are failing to see that owning a market takes a lot of work. Apple can’t just walk in and say, “We’re here, give us all the monies!” This takes a lot of work and planning and you need to have your what, why, how and when pre-planned.


Then detail it for us. Tell us how cable/sat and DVRs work into what I think is an indescribable product concept.

You missed it, but it was there. A few people have already mentioned wanting a more sensible TV user interface and less clutter, meaning fewer devices, fewer wires and fewer remotes. Whether that's enough, or whether there are other possibilities that can make it compelling at typical Apple margins and wrangle the media companies into accepting it is a very different question. I do think TV user interfaces in general do need a swift kick in the butt, they're usually clunky, ugly and counterintuitive, making it frustrating. Apple seems to be the only prospective party that can do that. As much as I'd like to see them do that, I think the proponents should acknowledge there are pieces of the proposition that are daunting and possibly intractable in terms of making it a successful product.

What?

Correct. This above all other reasons is why they can succeed in doing this. This is where the opportunity is.

All youre saying is they will succeed because they havent done it yet. That isnt a business model. That isnt a plan.

TiVo. Next case.

My original post was a reply to a post by AppleStud saying that Apple is dependent on no one else for their success. If you picked up only the part quoted by Gatorguy, you missed my entire thrust, i.e., your comments were all relevant on their own, but none was in response to the point I was making.

So won't go bullet by bullet, but a few points do deserve a bit of fleshing out for those who haven't been around for whole 35 year ride or haven't studied it in depth. Looking at your post total, and having read you many times, I know that doesn't include you, i.e., this is for general consumption, and not a slam at you.

Photoshop: For example, PS was originally developed for the Mac and was one of the "killer apps" that made it viable by capturing a good chunk of the image-making market, even tho' Adobe later dropped Apple to second class status during their darkest days and began bringing out new releases on Windows first. And it was well into the Mac revival before they finally brought out a Cocoa version to bring comparative performance back up to par.

But when Apple was clinging to the artist, enthusiast and K-12 markets as last bastions, Photoshop was a major prop holding the company up.

Office: MS agreed to keep developing Office on the Mac for "at least 5 years" (much more than 5 years ago now) and dropped a $150M cash infusion into the company around the same time. They did this not out of the philanthropic reasons that led to today's "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," but so that Apple would not go out of business at a time when the Justice Department was actively considering major anti-trust action against Microsoft, and helping keep Apple "relevant" was MS's best way to show that there was still "meaningful competition" in the PC market.

Lacking Office - and mainly lacking compatibility with its file formats - Apple would have dropped from view in the small business and professional markets and become useless in the few larger corporations where it maintained a presence in a few departments.

Both products persist today - on both platforms, and finally with near parity between Office for Win and Mac - not out of love - as there are many sore spots between Apple and Adobe and between Apple and MS - but because Apple not only did not founder, but has become again an important platform (and profit source) neither can afford NOT to be on.

Still, this in no way negates the fact that Apple never was and is not now (nor will ever be for that matter) totally independent of other companies.

Apps: As for mobile devices, beyond the core functions, Apple makes relatively few of the "hundreds of thousands of apps" that have helped create the perception that iOS is the place for ISV's - and therefore for users - to be today. This is key, even if most users only download a few free or low-cost apps (or none at all). Still, the fact is that most mobile app developers who are making money are making most of it on iOS. iPhone users are far more avid about buying apps than Android users. (Despite Android's geek sub-base which loves to bash iOS for being "closed" and a "toy," Android users as a whole are arguably cheaper and less sophisticated than iOS users.)

So again, third parties have been, are and will be instrumental to Apple's success in this arena.

Outsourced manufacture: We all know that American tech widget companies have ceded actual manufacturing to Asia. (I personally think there will be a [high] price to pay for that down the road - and not just for Apple - for a number of reasons, but that's another topic for another time.)

Still, if Apple hadn't been able to get the quality of manufacture it needed at a feasible price from third parties..... ...again, the point is that no Apple (or any other really major tech company) is an island. Etc., etc. re your other comments.

Apple and all of us are enmeshed in more than one kind of "web."

So having made that point, I then went on to speculate about what those interdependencies might - in my amateur opinion - might augur about whether launching a line of one or two models of TV into the vast commodity-centered home screen market makes sense at the moment, and concluded they'd be better off for the moment piggy-backing on the thousands of models already in people's living room with $99-$399 companion devices that make all those screens iOS-friendly. Including for reasons you yourself make in your last three paragraphs.

Offered respectfully....

Regarding TVs, yes I think they can. Ping sucks because it has no value prop and does LESS than competing services. I don't think they ever should have released Ping. An Apple TV could easily do everything current TVs so and much MORE. Thats why I think it could be very successful.


Which is why Apple has been working on it for years. Every new product Apple releases was conceived years before. They aren't suddenly deciding to release a TV because they sold a million Apple TV boxes. They sold a million Apple TV boxes because they want to release a TV.

And normally I would agree with you that a company can't just open their doors, say "we're here" and expect people to come running, but lately Apple has been an exception. The iPhone was pitched to AT&T and without ever seeing it AT&T snapped it up. The moment Apple unveiled the iPhone customers around the world were begging their carriers to release it. Apple can't make enough of them. Same thing with the iPad. I don't know of any other company that has ever accomplished this on such a large scale.

A lot of work goes into the product and the strategy, but when it finally makes it to market customers come running because its just too good and everything else is just too mediocre.



Cable/sat tuners are done. They're old news and although people still buy and use them if we look several years into the future we can see a huge shift happening. Whereas currently the tuner is the center of the home theatre, in the future smart/connected TVs will be the center. Tuners will be relegated to peripheral status. They will be used occasionally instead of consistently. They represent they way things were done and are done, but not the way things will be done.

As you can probably tell I'm a bit of a futurist, which is why its so easy for me to look past current confines and see future possibilities. There is almost nothing that cannot be torn down and replaced, and its easiest to do when people deny that its possible. Thats when they are most vulnerable

Youre talking ONE less cable and ONE less device that only takes up 4x4x1 just so you can have a nice UI for your monitor settings? How often are people jumping into their TVs settings anyway? The only common usage should be the Input and Volume, both of which are overlays, not internal menus.

You still have all those other devices connected to the TV which wont go away simply from combining the AppleTV with an HDTV. You still have a very expensive AppleTV that will now be without annually or bi-annually AppleTV HW upgrades on the cheap. You still having no reason why people would pay $1,999 over $99 for a device that only reduces ONE cable and ONE tiny box.

In today's new multiscreen wordl I don't know why people put only one tv on their wall. I'd mount and use two or even four screens for a kickass experience and maybe find a way to integrate both/all four if I want.

Sure people have failed trying to do the same things I've predicted. But if it can be done Apple has the Brand Loyalty within its ecosystem and the expertise to make it profitable to there hardware division.

Like iTunes they don't have to make money on TVs.

As for wanting Facebook or Twitter on a TV, I agree, and I wouldn't trust those entities with my privacy. However, I would trust Apple with my privacy. MobileMe can be in my TV anytime. Those who respect Apple's vision and wall-garden ecosystem do have the brand loyalty and trust to make this profitable to Apple. There are tens of millions of us just waiting for this to happen.

That is fanciful conjecture, not factual.


Apples been the exception because they have been exceptional. When the werent exceptional their offerings have failed to overtake a market so saying they will succeed because they are Apple is not any way accurate. They work hard to succeed and just like they say about knowing what not to include in their products, they also have a good track record of knowing what markets not to enter before they have a viable plan.


It was Cingular and they were apparently not the first. If you what you say is true about Apples Midas touch in business then Verizon wouldnt have turned them down.


They accomplished this by knowing when and how to enter the market, not simply by entering the market. Its ludicrous to think otherwise!


Show us proof. I dont see these appliances as being done in any way. Your plan means that I wont be able to watch my HBO and Showtime original programming unless I rent/buy it from iTS or wait for Netflx to get the DVD/streaming rights.


Youre not being futuristic, your just excited about the prospect of replacing a bunch of boxes for a single monitor in your living room.

From the tone of your post. It sounds as if your over all point is that Apple needs Photoshop and MS Office more than they need Apple. I think that misses the point that the Mac was the most organized platform to develop for when Word and Photoshop were originally launched.

Adobe and MS are not developing applications for the Mac to help Apple. The only reason they are doing it is because it is profitable for them.

As far as the money MS invested in Apple it was only a token gesture. Apple was holding over a billion in cash at the time.


Yeah I'm not sure why this point needed to be made, as no company can operate totally independent of other companies.


Apple sold roughly 12 million iPhone's before the App Store existed. While I agree 3rd party apps certainly help grow the functionality and usefulness of the iPhone. The iPhone was successful before 3rd party apps were available for it.




I agree. At this point its more productive and profitable for Apple to openly license AirPlay and allow every audio/visual device on the market to stream content from iOS. Than to get into the television business themselves.

This is thread is overly ridiculous. Sure, they arent required to make a profit, but to assume they would go to all this trouble just to lose money makes no sense.

Oh, and they had $1.1B in iTunes revenue last quarter. No idea of the profit but I have to assume there is a decent profit in there.

Why: Perhaps because the money isn't in TVs but in the content that TVs display.

For example, printer manufacturers rake it in selling cartridges, not printers.

Apple pulled a fast-one on the entire music industry by first only making iPods that were compatible with Macs. It allowed them to sell the idea to the music industry as a way to prevent copying, since mac marketshare is relatively small. But it's Apple who got complete control.

The complexity in TVs isn't an obstacle to market; it's an incentive. Anyone who can do with video content what Apple did with music will be sitting pretty for a long time.

Further, people actually buy TVs. They may not buy them with the regularity "commodity" manufacturers may like, but they buy them. Who buys Apple TVs--the $99 doohickey thing? It doesn't matter if ATV is a great TV and can do a million things--if nobody buys them. Heck, I argued for a long time that Apple should just drop bluray into ATV--to give someone a reason to buy one. But that would defeat the point for Apple which is to sell iTunes content.

If the iTunes content were embedded in the TV, then people would buy the TV for the TV; they wouldn't care about iTunes just like they don't care about ATV. The TVs would sell better than ATVs. More people would be exposed to iTunes content and use it, meeting Apple's intended end, even if it were an accidental byproduct of the TV purchaser.

Hes saying theyll reinvent the market, not play follow the leader.