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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


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.....

Because $2000 for a TV is absurd... even one with a little Apple logo on it.

But hey, if you've got that kind of money to burn, go for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andysol 

A slightly thinner TV that costs twice the price and you get an inferior picture with lighter blacks and duller color reproduction. 

I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.

Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.

I just hope it comes smaller than 55" too. Not all of us have massive living rooms.... something that size would look out of place turned off and make me motion sick turned on.  I suspect this would be especially important outside north america...

Quote:

Originally Posted by slinberg 

$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.

How much do the Samsung 8000 Series SmartTVs cost?  Well, here are the numbers

Model           Screen Size      List        Discount

UN46ES8000    46                $2,999    $2,197

UN55ES8000    55                $3,749    $2,697

UN60ES8000    60                $4,399    $3,097

This is Samsung's flagship line of LED 3D HDTVs with internet, smart navigations, gesture control, face recognition, web browser, etc.  From my perspective, Apple would probably go after this end of the TV market, since the Apple TV box is a simple, low cost solution for those that wouldn't normally spend lots of money on a TV, therefor would buy a Apple TV to get access to rentals, streaming, etc. without spending lots of money.  BUt for those that want more features and know they have to spend this kind of money to get a higher quality product, this is the market I think Apple will be going after.  JUST MY SPECULATION.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allmypeople 

 

I'll second this!

 

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

Agreed. The smallest TV in my house is 56", the largest 65".

Unless Apple comes out with at least 65", no sale in my household regardless of all the bells and whistles. And, a plasma option would be nice (bought my first plasma recently: LCD looks stale by comparison).

Quote:

Originally Posted by slinberg 

 

Because $2000 for a TV is absurd... even one with a little Apple logo on it.

 

But hey, if you've got that kind of money to burn, go for it.

Actually this price point seems low to me. My guess is Apple will compete against Samsung series 8000 3D Smart App TV. My guess is they will not go edge lit they will go full array led. Both will have facial recognition and gestures. Currently Samsung 8000 series at 55" MSRP is about 3400.00, however most of the time the price point is about 2500.00, I believe the 8000 series is still edge lit which is cheaper then fully array, however I could be wrong on that its their high end TV so it may be full array. 

Now, if you look at the guts inside the Samsung ES8000, the quality of the motherboards inside are not the highest quality.  They use fairly inexpensive PCB and the power supply isn't exactly what i would consider a high quality power supply.  Power supplies, especially for TVs are VERY important as they provide the power to drive the screen.  Usually when something goes wrong with a TV, it is usually the power supply that goes first.  The logic board is the other portion that is susceptible as well.  Apple, FORTUNATELY, uses high quality PCBs and components and rarely has failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy 

 

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 are not. Not anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.

 

Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.

This is simply not true. The sets you looked at may have had some type of default setting. It can be easily adjusted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.

 

Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.

Kind of true, but wrong about colors.  Colors are definitely more vibrant with Plasmas- maybe you didn't see a calibrated one?  Or an over calibrated LED maybe?  Really- the only reason I see the benefit to the LED would be in rooms where the TV faces a window or outdoors in restaurants, etc.  But I guess I shouldn't complain, I like the low cost of Plasmas for the better picture- better to let the advertising push what profits them the most and let those who research get the good deals.  :)

That all being said- if Apple makes something integrated- I'm all over it.  I have a media room with a 110" screen if I want to watch a movie or really care about a sports game.  When its just normal TV watching (which I do more of), and I have a way to watch it and change between components, easier navigation, etc.- I'll buy it.  But if its just a 55" LED with an Apple TV in the box and I still have to plug in my U-verse box and Blu-Ray player- then I'll take my $1,500, have a better TV, and say thanks but no thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

Agreed. The smallest TV in my house is 56", the largest 65".

 

Unless Apple comes out with at least 65", no sale in my household regardless of all the bells and whistles. And, a plasma option would be nice (bought my first plasma recently: LCD looks stale my comparison).

The size of the TV doesn't determine high, mid or low range. Quality of the panel, edge lit vs full array, 3D and single or dual core determines the range. A Samsung 8000 series or a Sony XBR series in any size is high end both with a price point well above 2000.00 in 55". In some cases over 2000.00 for 46". 

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty321 

A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.

Top-of-the line sets:

Sony HX929 55" currently goes for $3500 (although it has sold for as low as $2400).  

Panasonic VT50 55" (Plasma) currently goes for $2500.

Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD 60" (they don't make them any smaller) goes for about $4900.

Samsung "Smart TV" LED 8000 series in 55" goes for $3750.   LED 7550 and 7500 series in 55" goes for $3380.

And prices are expected to rise 10% next year as all the big TV manufacturers are losing tons of money.  Sony might get out of the TV business entirely, although what they'll probably do is OEM someone else's set.

Yes, there are plenty of cheaper sets, but they're mostly crap.   Judging by Apple's history, if the TV is real (and I still have my doubts), do you think they'll be priced closer to the top of the market or at the bottom? I think we all know the answer to that.  

And as others have posted, what makes you think the set can be priced any lower than an iMac?     A 27" iMac is $1700.    You can take out a few hundred $ in parts (like the Hard Disk and extensive memory) that it probably won't need, but you're doubling the screen size and panels are expensive.    If the set were great, $2000 for 55" would be a bargain, but I think that if it's real, Apple might do things like severely limit ports and/or in the interest of simplifying the user experience, eliminating the extensive picture controls that most sets have.   While I agree that those UIs are terrible, you're not getting a great picture without being able to calibrate the set.   I would never buy a TV that couldn't be properly color calibrated, regardless of the other functionality included.     

And by the way, "Apple's going to sell a phone for $200?  No one will buy that because you can get a phone for free or almost free!"  

---

As for screen sizes, since homes (and even apartments) tend to be larger in the U.S., people are going for larger screen sizes than in other places around the world.    Most sets sold in the U.S. are now in the 55" range with a big push towards 65" and above.    That's a big change from just two years ago when the most popular size set at J&R in New York City was 37".       But in the UK and places like it, smaller sets are more popular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips 

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 ...).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tailpipe 

 

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?

I envision the new Apple TV as an internet TV service - television programming available on any iOS or OSX device.  Airplay could put that on your family room TV.

I predict the 7" "iPad" is really the bundled remote for the TV. And the TV will be a single cable - integrated power and mini DP. The mini DP will hook into a breakout box where you can plug in any other HDMI components. Of course, it will include all of the AppleTV functionality along with Siri and FaceTime.

Second that. Setting up and controlling a TV plus DVD plus receiver is a freakin mess for most people, and I get tired of having to do it for most of the people in my life.

BTW, I bought a Harmony 700 (IR plus RF) controller for myself because they sold my father-in-law one at Best Buy, and I knew I was going to have to provide tech support. Plus it was highly rated - scripts and all that, that will turn all the right things on to the right settings and the like with only a single labelled button on the controller's screen (like "watch TV with surround sound").

Unfortunately, it's a frustrating, buggy, inexplicably inconsistent mess. I learned how to use it, and it's pretty much been sitting in it's cradle since - it easier to use the Comcast remote and set the other things manually than to constantly fiddle with the thing ("did that fix the problem?" No. No, it didn't.)

I think Steve could have produced what I'm hoping for, and I would buy a new TV just for that. I hope Cook is up to the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by focher 
I predict the 7" "iPad" is really the bundled remote for the TV. And the TV will be a single cable - integrated power and mini DP. The mini DP will hook into a breakout box where you can plug in any other HDMI components. Of course, it will include all of the AppleTV functionality along with Siri and FaceTime.

Why in the world would Apple make a remote control that costs at least $100 when they can just bundle their current remote (which would do absolutely anything you'd need) and tell people to use their iPad/iPod touch/iPhone if they want more control?

Why would a television have FaceTime and why would anyone want that on a television? Do you want people to see you cocked back in a Lay-z-boy in nothing but boxers, Cheetos dust down your front? 

And I think that one show (was it 30 Rock?) concisely showed why Siri doesn't make much sense.

And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?

I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eideard 

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 screen is no good without 4K content and that's YEARS!!! away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark 

I still don't buy this TV from Apple. TVs have small margins it's not worth it.
 

Do you like crow?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Why in the world would Apple make a remote control that costs at least $100 when they can just bundle their current remote (which would do absolutely anything you'd need) and tell people to use their iPad/iPod touch/iPhone if they want more control?

Exactly.

Not to mention you would have to be at the perfect viewing angle to even be seen.  How about when you're face timing an iPhone- as they see you in landscape mode as a dot in a giant room.  What's the point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

And I think that one show (was it 30 Rock?) concisely showed why Siri doesn't make much sense.

 

And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?

 

I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. 

Siri could work as long as its on the remote, has to have a button held while using it, holding the button down temporarily mutes or turns it down to a reasonable volume (couldn't help myself), and has good noise canceling.  That'd work better than using Siri on your iPhone in a crowded area- which you can still do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?

 

Pointless- correct.  But I would assume thunderbolt would be pointless too on a TV- as if they would allow you to use an external hard drive instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. 

It could work, but thats a huge could.  The analysts haven't given legitimate ways it could work- they just spit it out- the forums have much better ideas.

I don't why it would take 6 months for it to be ready after it is announced. The only reason they pre announced the iPhone and maybe the iPad was that they couldn't keep it under wraps once it was submitted to the FCC for approval. If they have to wait 6 months there will be Samsung clones on the market in S. Korea 2 months after Apple announces.

I see them releasing a 46" for $1,299 and a 60" for $1,999

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andysol 
It could work, but thats a huge could.  The analysts haven't given legitimate ways it could work- they just spit it out- the forums have much better ideas.

I don't think (and if I'm wrong, everyone, speak up!) that anyone but myself has talked about an actual revolution in television. I've talked about change on the same level as the iTunes Music Store in 2003, something that would actually break the hold cable and satellite providers have on us and which would usher in a new age of television and what it MEANS to have 'television programming'.

Anything that Apple does that is short of that vision is just "hobby" stage. And there's nothing about this change that requires an integrated television, either.

There are really two big changes that Apple could do, one to actually revolutionize television programming and the other to "revolutionize" televisions themselves. The latter, of course, being the less significant change.

The television revolution (the latter) would be to give us affordable (AM)OLED Super Hi-Vision screens before anyone else. I've heard of no plans for resolutions beyond Super Hi-Vision, which makes sense because no one will ever need them. 4k is actually a stopgap.

Japan is working toward it and actually have been for years now. They'll be broadcasting in it (in earnest; they already are, some) before anyone else. The London Olympics are being partially shot in Super Hi-Vision, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


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.....

But whether one can realistically expect a 55inch iMac for $2000 is not really his point, nor does one have to be feasible for him to be right.  His point is that once you get into that price range, you're entering an entirely new world...consumer expectation is higher because the cost has reached a breaking point in regard to that kind of technology.  A 55inch iMac for $2000 doesn't have to exist for me to be right about my estimation of worth.  If I'm going to spend $2000, it needs to be usable as a computer in every way.  I'm not paying an extra $1000 for a 55inch TV with a slick user interface.  That's ridiculous. 

You're talking to him like he's an idiot.  He simply told you what he would pay $2000 dollars for.  He didn't make any claims that it could be done.  It was an entirely different point he was making. He's being a good capitalist - he's stating what he is willing to pay $2000 for.  If, as you say, that can't be done, that makes his point - he won't be buying.  He wasn't making demands or talking about realism.  He was simply talking about what he'd be willing to pay $2000 for.  His point means quite a bit to any TV manufacturer.  I'm right there with him.  I don't demand, but I do require a $2000 TV to do quite a bit for me, including serve as a fully functional computer.  If it can't, I won't buy.  There's nothing unrealistic here.  It has to do with knowing what $2000 dollars is worth to ME.

Welcome to the new "Amercia".

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips 

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 ...).

I'm betting on specialized content from the iTunes store; Interactive content pretty much the same way they went with books in iBooks, making them more interactive.

iTunes content will contain proprietary tags that will allow for embedding links or information (and iAds) that is context aware. For instance, say you've downloaded a Nova episode from iTunes and the show mentions a subject you've never heard of or don't understand, the file could contain a link or a brief video explaining it. The viewer could "hit" the description at which point the episode pauses and the TV brings up the video or text. When done, it fades back to the episode and begins playing.  Or depending on the type of show or feed, the TV could pop up a translucent window with more information about what's going on.

I also think they're working on an open standard with others in the industry to make broadcast or cable feeds able to do the same thing.

Adding a pretty interface, or apps, or different ways of controlling the TV, doesn't change the overall experience. Changing the content and creating devices that support it, will be a paradigm shift and the kind of disruption Apple excels at.

Some iTunes movies and albums have "extras" now. So, I don't see this being an improbable feature.

This rumor needs a new screenshot besides House.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

Do you like crow?

All i'm saying is the TV market is different. People get cell phones every 2-3 years. People get computers every 4-5 years. People don't buy tvs unless their current ones fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eideard 

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 is meant for the cinema, not home use.  Sorry, it'll take at LEAST 10 years before they pump out 4K video to the home.  Who has the screen size for 4K?  I mean, they are JUST getting out 1080p content as a more popular standard and that'll still take about 5 to 10 years until everyone has 1080p screens.  The majority of HD TVs are 720p still.

I mean, they still haven't got HD audio that we can download yet, it's pretty much Dolby Digital.  These music/film companies are just milking each platform as much as they can.  They want us to buy a copy of each piece of content we have in as many different formats OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.  Heck, there are albums, that I bought the original album version, then they come out with CD, then a remastered CD, then a SACD, then a DVD-A, etc., etc.  It's the same thing for movies.  FIrst the VHS, then the DVD, then BluRay, then it's going to be BluRay 4K.  AHHHHH!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

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. 

Just because you think a TV set is a bad idea doesn't mean it's not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


So much for "no one would ever pay $2,000 for a TV" and "$2,000 is absurd".

I just sold a Samsung 55" ES8000 yesterday (with a 27" iMac) for just over £4000!

Last week it was a 70" Sharp 3D LED TV for £3500

People are happy to pay this sort of money - trust me!

I hope the rumours of an Apple TV set are true - they will fly out of the door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.

 

Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.

The brighter picture is often referred to as "torch mode" is just to catch people's eyes in the showroom. Many newer TVs will ask if you prefer the "home" mode to turn down the brightness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andysol 

 

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.

 

 

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.

No, it won't be $2500+. The basic fact you can't seem to understand is that while a company like Samsung has a few dozen TV models, obviously its highest end ones are going to be aimed for a niche market and not the mainstream. Apple is not going to go to the trouble of creating its own set if doesn't plan to market it as a mainstream device. It will have one, MAYBE 2 models at most, and they will need to be priced extremely competitively with whats out there. One thing Apple can't afford is this product to fail, not in financial terms, but in terms of damaging the brand name. People now expect every new Apple product to do insanely well, and if this TV does not it will be spun into the narrative of Apple going down the shitter without SJ. Apple can't afford that narrative, which is why I believe this needs to be priced every attractively and needs to be a good value proposition to lessen any chance of failure. If they do come out with a TV, it will DEFINITELY be priced below $2500- significantly so. I'd bet my account on it.