or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple considered buying stake in Sharp to aid development of television - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple considered buying stake in Sharp to aid development of television - report

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
As it is believed to be gearing up to launch its own television, Apple initially considered investing in Sharp's LCD business, but the company instead opted to let its manufacturing partner Foxconn fill that role, according to a new report.

It was announced last month that Foxconn bought a 10 percent stake in Sharp to help boost the company's money-losing LCD business. As part of the deal Foxconn will utilize Sharp's state-of-the-art LCD factory that opened in Sakai in 2009.

But before Foxconn stepped in and invested in Sharp, Apple considered buying a stake in the company, according to analyst Brian White with Topeka Capital Markets.

White was relayed the information while attending a technology trade show in China this week, and he revealed it in a note issued to investors on Friday. He said Apple "originally debated" whether it should invest in the LCD market, but ultimately decided against it.

"In our view, if Apple was willing to consider investing in the supply chain to exert influence in an area deemed important to the company's future, we wonder what else the company might consider," White said.

Reports out of the Far East have suggested that Foxconn's partnership with Sharp will give both companies an opportunity to produce IGZO displays for Apple's anticipated television set. By teaming up, it is believed that both Foxconn and sharp have a better chance of receiving orders from Apple.




The news that Apple apparently considered investing in Sharp comes as the company announced on Friday that it has begun production of the world's first LCD panels incorporating IGZO technology. IGZO displays will allow Sharp to produce thinner and more power efficient LCDs.

The initial run of IGZO screens will come in three sizes: 7 inches for tablets, 10 inches with 300 pixels per inch for high-definition notebook PCs, and 32 inches at a resolution of 3,840 by 2,160 pixels for LCD monitors.

As for the possibility of Apple further investing in its supply chain, White suggested that the company could try to exert influence over management at Foxconn by taking a position on their board. This would send a signal that initiatives at it and other partners are being closely monitored.

"With growing concern around treatment of workers at Apple's suppliers and heightened media coverage, we believe one option for Apple to better control the worker controversy is to have an Apple executive on the board of directors of certain suppliers and help manage the situation," White said. "This would send a clear message that Apple is deeply concerned with the treatment of workers at suppliers."

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 42
I'm a little surprised Apple has NOT made an investment in this area thus far. Especially given that the Retina opportunity is across its whole product portfolio

I see display technology as important as the microprocessor

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #3 of 42
Apple aren't going to make a TV, guys.

/s
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #4 of 42
I want a Sharp 32" 8K display so I can see every pore on Hugh Laurie's face.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple aren't going to make a TV, guys.

/s

I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. Apple will make an evolutionary step with whatever they have been planning.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple aren't going to make a TV, guys.

/s

Every time there is a rumour about an upcoming Apple HDTV you pay yourself on the back. It's a rumour!

On top of that, your prediction has never veered from having Apple make a TV so you'd have one less remote to deal with and an Apple logo on your TV set. If you have stated something profound about how this could be a profitable and revolutionary product (the way people predicted Apple could leverage their skills before the iPhone and iPad were announced) I certainly haven't read it.

Apple may release a TV but it's not any concept I've seen you present so if you have a strategy that you think would make this a viable product for Apple you should express it because your smarmy one liners patting yourself on the back just come across as douchey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. Apple will make an evolutionary step with whatever they have been planning.

He concluded his comment with the /s for sarcasm.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Every time there is a rumour about an upcoming Apple HDTV you pay yourself on the back. It's a rumour!

On top of that, your prediction has never veered from having Apple make a TV so you'd have one less remote to deal with and an Apple logo on your TV set. If you have stated something profound about how this could be a profitable and revolutionary product (the way people predicted Apple could leverage their skills before the iPhone and iPad were announced) I certainly haven't read it.

Apple may release a TV but it's not any concept I've seen you present so if you have a strategy that you think would make this a viable product for Apple you should express it because your smarmy one liners patting yourself on the back just come across as douchey.

He should post some mockups, like those he posted for his predicted iPhone mini.
post #8 of 42
Sharp TVs are godawful.
post #9 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple aren't going to make a TV, guys.

/s

So we're supposed to get all excited about a rumor that supports a previous rumor that never came true?

Thanks, but I'll stick with the real world.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

He should post some mockups, like those he posted for his predicted iPhone mini.

I do miss his mock ups.

I also wish AI would hire someone to create mockups. Besides seeing the same image used several times a week I think some AI-made mockups would encourage more readership.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I want a Sharp 32" 8K display so I can see every pore on Hugh Laurie's face.

Apple has no reason to make a 32 inch display with Retina resolution. It is not integral to any of their other products, perhaps Aperture, although, many high end professional photographers have moved past that at this point to solutions such as Phase One or Digital Express.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #12 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. ....

Margins on TVs are only pitiful because manufacturers compete on price. Apple doesn't do that.

Everything they make has roughly the same (large) margin with few exceptions. If this means that it's more expensive than the rest, then that's just the way it is. If this more expensive product doesn't sell, then they stop making it.

I don't see anything stopping Apple from making a TV. At the very least, the same margin argument could be made about every product they have come out with and every product they have been wildly successful with in the last ten or twenty years. I remember in particular the same argument being made about their computers in the 90's and the same argument being made about the iPhone before it came out also.
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I want a Sharp 32" 8K display so I can see every pore on Hugh Laurie's face.

It would almost certainly be a disaster for Apple if they try to enter the TV market with something as small as a 32" TV.

Anything under 42" is considered a "secondary" or bedroom/rec-room TV nowadays.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Margins on TVs are only pitiful because manufacturers compete on price. Apple doesn't do that.

Everything they make has roughly the same (large) margin with few exceptions. If this means that it's more expensive than the rest, then that's just the way it is. If this more expensive product doesn't sell, then they stop making it.

I don't see anything stopping Apple from making a TV. At the very least the same margin argument could be made about every product they have come out with and every product they have been wildly successful with in the last ten or twenty years. I remember in particular the same argument being made about their computers in the 90's and the same argument being made about the iPhone before it came out also.

Sure they do! Just look at the $999 iPad... I mean $499... that no one can compete with. Also look at the iPhone being sold at the same subsidized price as other smartphones. These are Apple's two most profitable arms. You can also look at their Macs where they are cheaper than comparable PCs.

As Jobs has repeatedly stated they will enter a market if they feel they have a viable strategy. Slapping an Apple TV and logo onto an HDTV isn't not good enough. There needs to be a reason why one would buy an Apple HDTV that does nothing more than an Apple TV connected to your current, already paid for, HDTV that will have size and feature options no one vendor can offer, especially not Apple.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It would almost certainly be a disaster for Apple if they try to enter the TV market with something as small as a 32" TV.

Anything under 42" is considered a "secondary" or bedroom/rec-room TV nowadays.

Why is the bedroom/den/rec room not a viable market for a TV? This is where the whole "Wouldn't be awesome if Apple made a TV?" argument falls apart. It's just a stationary monitor where the room and furniture dictate the ideal size more than the user's specific needs.

To say that it can't be 32" means that Apple would eschew users who want them for dorms, bedrooms, offices, etc. That's why having any number of vendors create any number of monitor sizes, styles, features, et al. makes more sense.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It would almost certainly be a disaster for Apple if they try to enter the TV market with something as small as a 32" TV.

Anything under 42" is considered a "secondary" or bedroom/rec-room TV nowadays.

This is not true in Japan, Europe, China, Korea, South East Asia and India where the average apartments are smaller in size.
Apple wants to sell its TV all over the world.
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why is the bedroom/den/rec room not a viable market for a TV? This is where the whole "Wouldn't be awesome if Apple made a TV?" argument falls apart. It's just a stationary monitor where the room and furniture dictate the ideal size more than the user's specific needs.

To say that it can't be 32" means that Apple would eschew users who want them for dorms, bedrooms, offices, etc. That's why having any number of vendors create any number of monitor sizes, styles, features, et al. makes more sense.

I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".

I'm just saying that the TV's get bigger every year, that 42" is the new "average" and that 50-80 inches is the new "big TV." I didn't mention (but it's a relevant fact), that pretty much all new TV technology debuts on the latest, greatest, and largest TV's.

Therefore & ipso facto etc. ....

It seems to me that to "debut" this astounding new product by bringing it to market on a tiny little TV, that's barely larger than today's average computer monitor, would indeed be "a disaster."

They would be laughed at. Hard.
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

This is not true in Japan, Europe, China, Korea, South East Asia and India where the average apartments are smaller in size.
Apple wants to sell its TV all over the world.

Didn't think of that. I am only aware of what's selling in North America & Europe.

It's a rare apartment that does't have a spare wall though and TVs are really best hanging on a wall at anything over 20" or so. I live in a tiny apartment and I could easily fit an 80" or 90" TV on my living room wall should such a thing exist.
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

I'm a little surprised Apple has NOT made an investment in this area thus far. Especially given that the Retina opportunity is across its whole product portfolio

I see display technology as important as the microprocessor

I would guess Apple prefers to be free to use the best technology currently available. If they invested directly in Sharp, and IGZO turns out to be a bust, what then? Dive headfirst into the flat panel business and try to out-engineer the competition by driving Sharp to come up with something better? Because that's a really, really expensive way to go.

Instead, they can let Foxconn and Sharp do their thing, see if works, and if it does bring boatloads of cash to lock-up their production runs. If not, they can hold their noses and keep using Samsung panels, and if something else comes along out of left field that's a game changer, they can take their money elsewhere.
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 #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Apple may release a TV but it's not any concept I've seen you present so if you have a strategy that you think would make this a viable product for Apple you should express it because your smarmy one liners patting yourself on the back just come across as douchey.



It will be a screen with an iOS "computer" inside. No wired except power. You'll be able to buy stuff from Apple with it. You'll be able to buy Apple licensed accessories for it.

It will stream anything from any existing Apple product, plus you will be able to buy contnet from Apple.

It will not have a tuner built in. If you are a die hard, you could plug your cable box into a wireless transmitter.
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".

I'm just saying that the TV's get bigger every year, that 42" is the new "average" and that 50-80 inches is the new "big TV." I didn't mention (but it's a relevant fact), that pretty much all new TV technology debuts on the latest, greatest, and largest TV's.

Therefore & ipso facto etc. ....

It seems to me that to "debut" this astounding new product by bringing it to market on a tiny little TV, that's barely larger than today's average computer monitor, would indeed be "a disaster."

They would be laughed at. Hard.

I don't disagree about the latest tech typically being on the largest TVs but that is one primary metric for "oohing' and "aahing" an audience. One exception was the 11" Sony XEL-1 OLED TV for $2,499 back in 2008.

But all that goes along with what I've been saying about slapping an Apple logo on a big ass monitor does not a market make.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Sure they do! Just look at the $999 iPad... I mean $499... that no one can compete with. Also look at the iPhone being sold at the same subsidized price as other smartphones. These are Apple's two most profitable arms. You can also look at their Macs where they are cheaper than comparable PCs.

As Jobs has repeatedly stated they will enter a market if they feel they have a viable strategy. Slapping an Apple TV and logo onto an HDTV isn't not good enough. There needs to be a reason why one would buy an Apple HDTV that does nothing more than an Apple TV connected to your current, already paid for, HDTV that will have size and feature options no one vendor can offer, especially not Apple.

They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.

The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.

Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity. An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung's very best TVs, it would beat them handily.

If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.

That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.

The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.

Take Samsung's latest and greatest "smart" OLED TVs for example, arguably they are at the top or near the top of the market in popularity.

An Apple TV with a Sharp IGZO panel and integrated Apple TV function would not only be directly competitive with Samsung, it would beat them handily. If such a thing could be produced for the right price, it would be (potentially) thinner or as thin, better colour, more pixels and far far "smarter." With the right content deals in place, (and we know apple has been working hard on this for years and years), it could be a "plug it in and forget it" device with no need for hookups, amplifiers, speakers, etc. saving the first time buyer thousands of dollars in add-ons.

That's just "out of the gate" too. No doubt it would be improved year by year and get both cheaper and larger year by year. If they came out with a 40" 60" and 80" model of this TV they could sweep the market easily.

A connected TV UI is certainly a place where Apple could leave others in the dust. For all their chest thumping, Samsung makes horrible software. They got lucky with Android, since it gave them a legitimate software platform to build on. Left to their own devices, their stuff is insultingly bad. I mean, I've seen a lot of complaints about the latest Apple TV UI, but compared to the shit that Samsung sticks on their TVs it looks like a work of sublime genius.

So if Samsung wants to make a badass connected TV, they're at the mercy of Google, and given Google TV it's not clear that Google can shake off its über-nerd tendencies long enough to make anything that isn't so hilariously over-engineered that it makes watching TV feel like work.

Apple, on the other hand and should they elect to make a TV, will obviously make it super simple and fun to use. At the moment, the "smart TV" landscape looks a bit like the the smart phone market before Apple entered it, with the very notable caveat that there wasn't any analog to the cable TV/broadcast content issue.
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 #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".

I don't really like a huge TV in a room unless it is a home theater media room, which I do not have. 42" is fine for me. Reading the article, it mentions 32" MONITOR. I know some high end home theaters call the display a monitor since they have external receivers, however they seldom if ever have a resolution beyond 1080i. If Apple created a 32" monitor with 3,840 by 2,160 resolution it would be over kill for HD TV. That is why I think the only logical use for such a monitor would be for high end computing and not primarily TV.

What might be pretty cool is revisiting the old days of PCs with a TV tuner card where we watched TV in an application window. If in the modern rendition, it was an Apple TV inside the monitor and an app to view TV in an iPad size 1080 window on the desktop, all the while working with other windows like a normal computer. Or if you just wanted to dedicate it to TV viewing you could expand the window to full screen. Nice but pretty much the same thing as iTunes on OS X is right now.

Of course for that to work in the Apple ecosystem we would need a mid range desktop computer other than an iMac.

If Apple is going to enter the living room TV market I doubt they will bother with Retina resolution since all of the iTunes content will be 1080 for the foreseeable future.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 42
One of my concerns is by the time Apple releases it's Television most of the features will have already been implemented in technology or TV's that are on shelf presently.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Apple has no reason to make a 32 inch display with Retina resolution. It is not integral to any of their other products, perhaps Aperture, although, many high end professional photographers have moved past that at this point to solutions such as Phase One or Digital Express.

I don't think I've known anyone who adopted Aperture on a serious level. It's such a clunky piece of software for dealing with larger projects.
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I tend to agree, even though both of us used to think they would. Margins on TVs are pitiful. Apple will make an evolutionary step with whatever they have been planning.

Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

One of my concerns is by the time Apple releases it's Television most of the features will have already been implemented in technology or TV's that are on shelf presently.

But probably implemented badly. Like simple voice command before Siri, like touch-screens before iPhone, like tablets before iPad... need I go on?
Others just don't seem to have the chops to do these things well enough in a complete package.

The LG ad with the girl standing in front of her TV telling it things to do is brilliant!!! /s
post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

Margins on PCs are generally pitiful as well, except when Apple make them.

That's only because they can offer more with a computer that is worth paying for. What they can offer that others don't have in a TV unit isn't immediately obvious.

This article is stating that Apple only considered investing in Sharp with some of the $100b burning a hole in their pockets but ultimately decided against it. They have therefore made no such investment that would make anyone think they planned to make a TV.

Next we'll get a photo of Tim Cook using a remote as further evidence that he's testing out the TV experience. This rumour has been swirling around for a while now:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/20/...v-set-by-2011/

Not a single iota of evidence has appeared to support the iPad Mini nor the Apple TV Set.

Any display investment Apple makes is more likely to be for Cinema displays and iMacs. Now that the iPad is 2048 x 1536, they should aim for an iMac display where the vertical resolution is higher than 2048 (min 3640 x 2048). The obvious next step is 4K (QFHD = 3840x2160) = 2x1920x1080.
post #30 of 42
Hmmmm a 7" IGZO display for a tablet means either the smaller iPad rumors are true or a Android/Win8 tablet maker will be using it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Margins on TVs are only pitiful because manufacturers compete on price. Apple doesn't do that.

Everything they make has roughly the same (large) margin with few exceptions. If this means that it's more expensive than the rest, then that's just the way it is. If this more expensive product doesn't sell, then they stop making it.

I don't see anything stopping Apple from making a TV. At the very least, the same margin argument could be made about every product they have come out with and every product they have been wildly successful with in the last ten or twenty years. I remember in particular the same argument being made about their computers in the 90's and the same argument being made about the iPhone before it came out also.

Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.

Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #32 of 42
Kind of surprising there would be so many computer geeks in the room and none of you lot know anything about TV and what's already showing at events like CES.

I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:

1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.

2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post

I'll just note 2 things for you. Get off your rusty dusties and do some Googling and catch up with what was showing in Las Vegas 3 months ago:

1. Learn what 4K television is. You can't stream it via satellite usefully; but, you can stream it over cable and cable systems' IP services. You can download it - of course. OTA channels are probably too cheap to add it to their stations till cable proves it profitable.

2. Sharp [fancy that] showed a 55" 4K TV set at CES that they said would be available to the public by Q3.

Yawn. Seriously. Wake me up when Super Hi-Vision is available outside Japan. 4k isn't our final solution; it is.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm not saying it "can't" be 32".

I'm just saying that the TV's get bigger every year, that 42" is the new "average" and that 50-80 inches is the new "big TV." I didn't mention (but it's a relevant fact), that pretty much all new TV technology debuts on the latest, greatest, and largest TV's.

Therefore & ipso facto etc. ....

It seems to me that to "debut" this astounding new product by bringing it to market on a tiny little TV, that's barely larger than today's average computer monitor, would indeed be "a disaster."

They would be laughed at. Hard.

Yes if you want to sell it in the U.S. first and the rest of the world later. Runaway real estate prices outside North America means leaving the nest is not a viable option for 20 somethings anymore. And old TV bought within 5 years ago may have to soldier on as far as 20, just like their CRT ancestors.

No offense sir but, baby boomers with the kind of income to keep 40+ big TV sales going are dying faster than we GenX can replace you. In 10 years time your kids would be left with half the paycheck and half the money in the bank, most of them anyway, while your generation are six feet under.

Here's the problem Apple may have to think ahead. Parents are dying and their children you'll need to sell to do not have money like their parents do when they walk into the store 5 or 10 years later.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Yes, I'm aware Apple doesn't primarily compete on price, but they do occasionally.

Also, TVs are different from phones. Phones have utility beyond just making calls. What utility could Apple add to a TV that would cause people to (A) dump their cable or satellite provider with glee, (B) dump their "old" plasma or LCD TV that they may have purchased just last year?

Would AppleTV look rather like a Big Mac; a computer you can watch TV on, the same way you could call iPhone a Small Mac?
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

They compete on price in that some of their products turn out to be price competitive, but they don't compete on price in the manner of trying to be the cheapest in the market or on lowering margins to achieve savings in manufacturing or distribution. They have aproximately the same margins on the iPad as all their other stuff.

The "reason" for buying an Apple TV (if they make it), is the same reason for buying all of their products. Superior quality and design. If Apple makes a TV it will undoubtedly have the best picture and look like something from the future.

No they don't have the same margins on the iPad as on other stuff. They specifically said they would accept lower margins for the iPad! Not sure what the actual margins are but the fact that nobody seems to be able to compete on price speaks volumes.

On the iPhone, on the other hand, their margins were too high - but they couldn't lower prices as long as demand was red-hot, and demand remained red-hot throughout the entire life of the iPhone 4. Only now with the 4S it's cooling down / production is catching up, and they've lowered the unsubsidized price, at least here in South East Asia.

As for TV I also think it will be more than just an AppleTV with an LCD. At the very least, baseline, it will be the one device to replace your TV, set top box, media player, DVD player. LCD TV + Hulu / Netflix is pretty close already so it's not a huge jump from Apple TV + LCD. But there will be "one more thing".
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

He said Apple "originally debated" whether it should invest in the LCD market, but ultimately decided against it.

Better to pit several suppliers against each other. Get them into a bidding war to lower your component contract costs.
Also helps avoid having a single point of failure in case there are production problems. At least one of the contractors will
get it right, putting pressure on the other(s) to get their act together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The initial run of IGZO screens will come in three sizes: 7 inches for tablets, 10 inches with 300 pixels per inch for high-definition notebook PCs, and 32 inches at a resolution of 3,840 by 2,160 pixels for LCD monitors.

10 inch high-definition notebook PCs? Really? Netbooks 2.0?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As for the possibility of Apple further investing in its supply chain, White suggested that the company could try to exert influence over management at Foxconn by taking a position on their board. This would send a signal that initiatives at it and other partners are being closely monitored.

And said board member could also warn Apple if/when Foxconn does work for other companies.
All your IGZO are belong to us. (???)

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthorim View Post

As for TV I also think it will be more than just an AppleTV with an LCD. At the very least, baseline, it will be the one device to replace your TV, set top box, media player, DVD player. LCD TV + Hulu / Netflix is pretty close already so it's not a huge jump from Apple TV + LCD. But there will be "one more thing".

I've read rumors (possibly here) that the Apple television device will eventually expand into a home automation system.
This would give Apple demographic information that Google, Amazon, and Facebook would *kill* for.
Because it could learn your patterns, habits, and lifestyle. What better way to understand your customers?

Think about it. Google knows what you search for, your email, your documents, and a little about what you buy (and a tiny bit of social info.)
Amazon knows a lot about what you buy online and not a whole lot more. Facebook knows all of your friends.

Apple could expand their TV system beyond just serving up entertainment. It could do the basic home automation tasks like
turning lights on and off via Siri voice command, automatically randomizing lights going on and off when you're on vacation,
turning on the heat as you leave you office and approach your home, etc.

But, with a bit of wild extrapolation, I could see an Apple home automation system that handles your alarm system, reminds you to
pay bills, opens/closes your garage door by voice command, plays back your home voice messages, takes
voice reminders from family members just like the Siri app on iOS, integrates with iCloud across all your Apple devices, etc.
It would add your home to the Apple ecosystem.

If Apple doesn't do it sooner, someone else will do it later.
Then again, maybe the public isn't ready for all that yet...

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #39 of 42
The problem with home automation systems is the buy-in price. It's not just a piece of software running on a cheap CPU, it's all the programable interfaces to all the outlets, HVAC and media systems in your home.

Until they start building smart-homes as a matter of course, with intelligent control on each outlet, port and system and a plugin architecture that's interoperable with some standard, home automation will remain a relatively affluent person's niche market.
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 #40 of 42
Could the new Apple HDTV be a projector??

Current LCD projectors use a max of 1080p resolution in a 3" panel. That works out about 600 dpi or so. With all the work apple has done producing retina iPhone and iPad, is it possible that they have worked with Sharp to create a panel with 2000 dpi resolution for 4K HD?

A 4K panel coupled with real time pixel interpolation to up convert from HD to 4K might actually be the cheapest solution for ultra large screen TVs. I am talking 100 inches plus at retina quality! Apple could easily make these TVs within 1-2000 USD and sell it for its usual 40% margins.

The technology itself is available. Apple (or maybe it's partners) managed to create the iPad screen at the outer limits of today's technology. Just applying the exact same changes to existing LCD projector panels would probably be enough to hit 2000 dpi panels. Even if that is not possible, newer technology is already available that allows for 2000 dpi resolutions.

For instance the CCD in a high end camera Easily hits 8000 dpi. Even consumer grade scanners easily hit 4800 dpi. A 2000 dpi 4K panel is not so difficult as it looks. It might be tough on a large screen, but with just a 3-4" panel, it is easily possible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple considered buying stake in Sharp to aid development of television - report