or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › 55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'

post #1 of 138
Thread Starter 
Recent information from component suppliers and comments from Apple CEO Tim Cook have further increased one analyst's confidence that Apple will unveil a television set late this year and launch it in the first half of 2013.

Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray sees Apple's full-fledged television set retailing between $1,500 and $2,000, with screen sizes between 42 inches and 55 inches. Such a product would add between 4 and 8 percent to Apple's calendar year 2013 revenues, he believes.

"The bottom line is that evidence including our checks this week and over the past two years with component suppliers, Tim Cook's D10 interview, Steve Jobs' biography, and third party reports all point to Apple working on a television," Munster wrote in a note to investors on Friday. "We believe 'if' has been decided and now the question is 'when.'"

He expects that the product will be unveiled later this year and will hit the market about six months after it is announced. That would be in line with Apple's previous product launches with the iPhone and iPad, both of which were announced months before their launch to give developers a head-start.

For Munster, the key focus for Apple will be creating a revolutionary TV interface, likely including Siri, compatibility with third-party devices, and potential integration with content guides. If the company can achieve those goal, he believes the interface will be the device's key selling point.

Munster also believes that an Apple television would have its own App Store for games, music, video and other content. He sees users interacting with these applications through their voice, an iPhone or iPad, and potentially even motion capture built in to the display.

HDTV


He also expects that an Apple TV set would include design cues from the company's existing product lineup, such as an aluminum casing and a minimal number of wires. The design will make it "the stand-out centerpiece of the consumer's living room," he said.

Munster also expects that Apple's television set will feature an LCD screen, rather than next-generation OLED display technology. He noted that OLED panels remain too costly for large screen sizes for Apple to adopt.

As for content, the analyst doesn't expect Apple to revolutionize that aspect of TV watching. Munster believes Apple ultimately wants to offer users unbundled channels and more options, but since content owners are hesitant to change.

"This will take time (3-5 years), and while we believe Apple will innovate on its existing TV content offering at the launch of the Apple Television, we caution that the initial offering may more closely resemble the apple TV content offering (Netflix, iTunes, and eventually Hulu)," he said.

The connected TV market in 2013 is estimated by Piper Jaffray to be sales of 110 million units. If Apple were to capture between 5 and 10 percent of that with an average selling price of $1,750, it would be sales of between 5.5 million and 11 million, which would add 4 to 8 percent to the company's calendar year 2013 revenue.
post #2 of 138
Your title is wrong. You state:
"55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'if,' not 'when'"

I think you really mean:
"55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'"
"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 #3 of 138

yes - the author (Neil Hughes) got mixed up on the title :)

It needs to be:

 

"55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'"

post #4 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your title is wrong. You state:
"55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'if,' not 'when'"
I think you really mean:
"55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'"

 

Sloppy work

post #5 of 138
So- $1,100 or $1,200 for a 60" LG or Samsung Plasma, or $2,000 for a 55" LED. It better have some serious integration (cable box and Blu ray built in and amazingly intuitive to control)- or something else crazy I haven't thought of. Otherwise, plasma and apple tv for me.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #6 of 138

Hopefully 55" is the mid size from a series of size options, I've had that for years.  Many people, me included, are ready for larger.

 

I suspect there is something radically innovative involved no one has figured out.  So far everything seems to be simply Apple TV built into an Apple branded TV (Apple Monitor), I have to believe there is way more than that coming (if it's coming ...).


Edited by digitalclips - 6/1/12 at 5:32am
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #7 of 138
You know that rumour about a 7.85" tablet from Apple? That does make sense because it does let them use the same tech they've been using since 2007 for the display as it's just a larger sheet of that 164.83 PPI display. Surely that should save them a bundle?

If Apple makes a 53.46" HDTV they could use that same tech for an 8K (7680x4320) HDTV. Of course that means just one TV size (TV buying doesn't work that way), it also means no content except what Apple would use for the OS that could possibly show 8K, and it would also be a TN panel not IPS. They could also use the panels they've been using for their non-HiDPI Macs all these years, too, which makes more sense on many levels but I didn't run those numbers.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #8 of 138

All that would be needed to move me over at that price/size would be a 4K screen.  Afraid that would change the price a lot, though.

post #9 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post

All that would be needed to move me over at that price/size would be a 4K screen.  Afraid that would change the price a lot, though.

4K would be useless without 4K content.  There's a small amount of 4K stuff available online, but not enough to justify a 4K set.  Unless Apple is working with the industry to make HD obsolete already.  

post #10 of 138

Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.

post #11 of 138
aaagghhh

I still click reply instead of quote ... not sure what friggin use a reply is to a comment without a quote so why have a reply?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #12 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

4K would be useless without 4K content.  There's a small amount of 4K stuff available online, but not enough to justify a 4K set.  Unless Apple is working with the industry to make HD obsolete already.  

This is where Apple TV APIs and an App Store would be very nice.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #13 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.

Thanks for the preferences tip. However, it still shows no emticons for me ... I get blue boxes with question marks.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #14 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.

my cable box will minimize the current channel while i channel surf. i've never used PiP

post #15 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Thanks for the preferences tip. However, it still shows no emticons for me ... I get blue boxes with question marks.

 

Yep, AppleInsider really Samsunged the look and feel of the new site with a slight lack of Apple-quality testing.

 

?And when? ?are they going? ?to fix the problem? ?with all the damn, occasional? ?question-marks?

 

?Riddle me that!?

 

12_RiddlerQuestionMark.jpg

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #16 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Yep, AppleInsider really Samsunged the look and feel of the new site with a slight lack of Apple-quality testing.

?And when? ?are they going? ?to fix the problem? ?with all the damn, occasional? ?question-marks?

?Riddle me that!?

I've never seen that. I have Western (ISO Latin 1) set as my default encoding in Safari 5.2.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #17 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


This is where Apple TV APIs and an App Store would be very nice.

Streaming 4K content is going to be hurt by bandwidth issues for most locations.

 

Not trying to throw up roadblocks, but acknowledging that Apple would have to rely too much on factors outside their control for this to provide the quality they would desire.

post #18 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Hopefully 55" is the mid size from a series of size options, I've had that for years.  Many people, me included, are ready for larger.

 

I suspect there is something radically innovative involved no one has figured out.  So far everything seems to be simply Apple TV built into an Apple branded TV (Apple Monitor), I have to believe there is way more than that coming (if it's coming ...).

 

This view has to be right. There would be little point in Apple entering the TV game at this stage unless it had some pretty cool new technology to bring to the party. 

 

What could that be? Hardware revolution: Screen resolution, 3D, or perhaps it is software driven: the way TV content is distributed? Something like a new TV service as radical as iTunes to rival the likes of Sky broadcasting? 

 

The move from analogue to digital is now complete in the UK and super fast broadband is now being rolled out. Goodbye satellite and hello internet TV channels. The start of this could be Apple's own TV service: buying a range of content and distributing it via an online subscription service. I can see Apple doing deals with HBO, National Geographic, the History Channel, Nickelodeon and of course sports channels.

 

In the UK, we're pretty limited in our choice of channels because you have to buy large Sky packages (with a whole bunch of stuff you don't want) to get the stuff you do want. Sky's pricing is based on its monopolistic status. So TV is ripe for a revolution.  

post #19 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Hopefully 55" is the mid size from a series of size options, I've had that for years.  Many people, me included, are ready for larger.

 

 

I'll second this!

 

55" should be mid-range. I'm ready for 60"+!

post #20 of 138

I still don't buy this TV from Apple. TVs have small margins it's not worth it. But if they do, Sammy will release one strikingly familiar to it and says "that's where the design convergence will be! It's just coincidental that Apple got there first."
 

post #21 of 138

$2000 for a TV? Sure.

 

If I'm ever going to lay out that kind of change, it has to be a full-blown Mac on the inside. An iMac with a 55" monitor. $2k for that, fine. $2k for just the monitor, forget it.

post #22 of 138
I commented on an earlier thread about the forthcoming AppleTV, and just did a quick Google research on some of the things that I think will definitely be included in any Apple-branded TV to be successful.
  1. Remote replacement for all connected devices inkl. BluRay, Tivo, Cablebox, etc. I think Apple will sell their current remote stand-alone, but also update their iOS remote. While it could be a simple IR... an RF remote would be better, as stated in this glowing review of the Logitec Harmony One ~$160,00.
  2. Programming their own chip to interface with the consumer electronics channel (CEC) in HDMI cables to allow devices to communicate with each other
  3. Full use of the HDMI 1.3 spec, as well as DisplayPort.
  4. integrated iSight camera is a given, but what about Leap Motion?

Personally, I think the Universal Remote is the biggest improvement that Apple can make to most any entertainment system.... and actually improve it rather easily.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #23 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

So- $1,100 or $1,200 for a 60" LG or Samsung Plasma, or $2,000 for a 55" LED. It better have some serious integration (cable box and Blu ray built in and amazingly intuitive to control)- or something else crazy I haven't thought of. Otherwise, plasma and apple tv for me.

Why would you compare the price of plasma to LED? How about an apples to apples comparison? Yes, the rumored Apple TV would still be more expensive, but not as much as you're suggesting.

And, of course, the energy cost of operating the plasma TV will make it more expensive in the end, anyway.
"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 #24 of 138
Just to clarify my above post:

imagine if the TV intercepted all of the IR and HDMI signals, and made them available using Bonjour Services over WLAN, Bluetooth 4, or AirPlay connection.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #25 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by slinberg View Post

$2000 for a TV? Sure.

If I'm ever going to lay out that kind of change, it has to be a full-blown Mac on the inside. An iMac with a 55" monitor. $2k for that, fine. $2k for just the monitor, forget it.

Considering that a 27" iMac is $2 K, why in the world would you expect a 55" iMac for the same price?

Some people just can't be realistic in their demands.....
"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 #26 of 138
A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.
post #27 of 138

tumblr_m4cauwIz8Z1qijqc2o1_500.jpg

post #28 of 138

Oh, hey, look at this.

 

Release of iPad mini viewed as question of "when", not "if".

 

Oh, hey, look at this, too.

 

Mini iPhone a question of "when", not "if".

 

Can we stop the madness now? You can't repeat it enough times to make it true. If I were Tim Cook seeing this stuff, I'd put effort into making it never true. lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #29 of 138

Anyone here who thinks $2K for a "Smart TV" is ridiculous...

 

the MSRP in the United States on Samsung's top of the line 55" LED TV is $3379, and the lowest ONLINE price i've seen is $2398

LG's 55" flagship has an MSRP of $3599.

 

http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-new-smart-tvs

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/all-tvs

post #30 of 138

I think $2k would work if the audio on this TV blew everyone else away.  Also the comment about remote placement of components makes sense to me.  I'll pay for not having to run wires when I wall mount.  I still haven't run wires through the walls on two of my TV's.

post #31 of 138

This is the same story going round and round and round and round without any new information each time.

 

I'm not sure how "revolutionary" its going to be given that you can already buy motion & voice controlled TVs now and I very much doubt the cable companies will provide APIs for Apple to control their TV guides.

 

I hope they mean "LED" screens rather than "LCD". LCD is old technology now.

 

As for size starting at 42" that makes no sense. The most popular TV sizes are 32" and 37" around the world so I would expect them to go with 32", 42" and 55".

 

I hope they've got some design help this time around. I seem to remember the last time Apple made a home entertainment device it was that hideous speaker thing.
 

post #32 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I still don't buy this TV from Apple. TVs have small margins it's not worth it. But if they do, Sammy will release one strikingly familiar to it and says "that's where the design convergence will be! It's just coincidental that Apple got there first."

 

How much can the design change? Who cares what the back looks like because nobody ever sees it.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #33 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

Anyone here who thinks $2K for a "Smart TV" is ridiculous...

the MSRP in the United States on Samsung's top of the line 55" LED TV is $3379, and the lowest ONLINE price i've seen is $2398
LG's 55" flagship has an MSRP of $3599.

http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-new-smart-tvs
http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/all-tvs

And how many of those do you think they sell?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #34 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

So- $1,100 or $1,200 for a 60" LG or Samsung Plasma, or $2,000 for a 55" LED. It better have some serious integration (cable box and Blu ray built in and amazingly intuitive to control)- or something else crazy I haven't thought of. Otherwise, plasma and apple tv for me.

 

Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 

post #35 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

4K would be useless without 4K content.  There's a small amount of 4K stuff available online, but not enough to justify a 4K set.  Unless Apple is working with the industry to make HD obsolete already.  

If it ever happens, it's going to a chicken and egg dilemma.

The content does exist, but it's not available for sale, only available to movie theaters right now, not in a consumer format or distribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Considering that a 27" iMac is $2 K, why in the world would you expect a 55" iMac for the same price?
Some people just can't be realistic in their demands.....

Assuming it happens, I really don't think it's going to be a big iMac. I doubt it's going to be Intel-based, a current ARM chip is going to be more than enough for the job. Also, TV panels are a lot cheaper per unit area than computer panels, though a 55" TV panel probably costs more than the 27" panel that Apple uses, you probably have to go down a couple size classes to get price equivalency.
post #36 of 138

At $2000 it would still be a hobby, not anything that would sell in enough quantity to make any difference in Apple's revenues.  Maybe as one model in a fairly big product line, but it's hard to imagine a model at that price point being one of the main models.

post #37 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 

They're also superior picture quality, especially for action and sports. I'll never settle for an LCD or LED again, and I sure as heck won't pay more money for lower quality.

post #38 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I commented on an earlier thread about the forthcoming AppleTV, and just did a quick Google research on some of the things that I think will definitely be included in any Apple-branded TV to be successful.
  1. Remote replacement for all connected devices inkl. BluRay, Tivo, Cablebox, etc. I think Apple will sell their current remote stand-alone, but also update their iOS remote. While it could be a simple IR... an RF remote would be better, as stated in this glowing review of the Logitec Harmony One ~$160,00.
  2. Programming their own chip to interface with the consumer electronics channel (CEC) in HDMI cables to allow devices to communicate with each other
  3. Full use of the HDMI 1.3 spec, as well as DisplayPort.
  4. integrated iSight camera is a given, but what about Leap Motion?
Personally, I think the Universal Remote is the biggest improvement that Apple can make to most any entertainment system.... and actually improve it rather easily.

Current HDMI spec is 1.4, not 1.3.    

 

The Harmony (and all the other "universal") remotes are a pain to program.     Go to any online site and there are pages and pages devoted to postings from people who have trouble getting it to do what they want.   I don't want to turn programming a remote into a hobby.        Apple's solution has to be far better and might be nothing more than and an iOS program + an accessory IR transmitter that is included with the TV.  The software must be completely flexible, support multiple command streams and support equipment that Apple doesn't like.      There are tons of other solutions out there for iOS and other devices, but they all require the purchase of IR transmitter boxes and they don't support every device.     I do think Apple can do a much better job.    Of course, for everything except turning the devices on and off (and sometimes that too), you can do everything over WiFi, but lots of devices don't have embedded WiFi.  If you have to buy an Apple Express (or equivalent) for each device, it can get expensive.     HDMI 1.4 includes Ethernet over HDMI, but not a single manufacturer has included this functionality as yet.    Maybe Apple should be the first.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.

Useless for most people as that only gets you the PiP for the over-the-air channels.    And that's if the sets have two tuners, which most don't.  On my high-end Sony, I can have cable in one window and over-the-air in another, but that's as far as it goes and once you put one image in the full window, you've got a million annoying clicks to get back to PiP.     

 

What an Apple TV really needs, although I don't know how Apple can pull it off knowing the limitations of cable and satellite technology, is a display where you can display multiple live windows of content from many channels (or sources) and switch to the one you want.   Sort of like a live version of "Show Top Sites" in Safari.      

post #39 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why would you compare the price of plasma to LED? How about an apples to apples comparison? Yes, the rumored Apple TV would still be more expensive, but not as much as you're suggesting.
And, of course, the energy cost of operating the plasma TV will make it more expensive in the end, anyway.

 

The energy cost would make it more expensive in the end?  How much TV do you watch?  Even at 10 hours a day- 365 days a year on the average watt consumption of Plasma vs LED, you would have to have the TV for 9 years.  If you watch it 5 hours a day (still a crapload)- it would be 18 years.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 

 

I was talking about me- not a LED to LED comparison- I think $2k is an underestimate if it were an Apple TV.  As others have mentioned your "smart" Sharps, Samsungs, LG LEDs are more than $2k @ 55"- so that would be insanely competitive and blow the others out of the water (LED vs LED that is)- which I wouldn't expect Apple to do- they'd be around $2,500+ if anything.

 

But my side note was that to this day I don't understand anyone who picks a large LED over a Plasma.  A slightly thinner TV that costs twice the price and you get an inferior picture with lighter blacks and duller color reproduction.  Oh, but you do save ~$30/year in electricity. It makes no sense.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #40 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I hope they mean "LED" screens rather than "LCD". LCD is old technology now.

LED back light. Some manufacturers are calling their displays LED but they are the same LCD with LED back light.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › 55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'