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' - Page 3

post #81 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post


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!!

There are better reasons for changing the movie medium than making you buy the movie again, most importantly better picture quality which most consumers would agree is a good thing. Blu-ray players still play DVD's which allow consumers to actually not have to buy the content again. Again, most consumers would agree is a good thing.

post #82 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Depends on the size, plasmas under 50" are still inexpensive but the higher sizes now come with 3D built in plus other new tech has driven up their price.

One of the problems with plasma is that they have to be calibrated every so often and they are very delicate when shipping and handling.  They can't put the TV sideways, otherwise it could damage it.  B&O's 85 and 103 inch are around the $100K price range and not many people can afford those, if they could they would probably elect to have a projection system in a dedicated home theater, or they are just stupid rich and want the most expensive TV's you can get.  They are cool, but at a price only a handful can afford and actually pay for.

post #83 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

This rumor needs a new screenshot besides House.

And a new rendering of a TV that doesn't look like yesterday's Apple Cinema display.....

 

AI, please put Ireland on the job?

post #84 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Just because you think a TV set is a bad idea doesn't mean it's not true.

 

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion from that post. If anything, you should be calling into question the thought that it will ever happen, given the track record of people who say "when, not if" for Apple products.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post
There are better reasons for changing the movie medium than making you buy the movie again, most importantly better picture quality which most consumers would agree is a good thing.

 

Unless, of course, you can't see the difference anyway, which many would have you believe.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #85 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What the heck are you going on about!? Who said anything about a "high, mid or low range"? Did you intend to reply to some other post?

Actually, the Sharp Elite product is far more expensive than the Samsung ES8000 or the Sony Bravia SBR.  Sharp Elites/Aquos as well as B&O can go from $5,000 to $9,000.

post #86 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Actually, the Sharp Elite product is far more expensive than the Samsung ES8000 or the Sony Bravia SBR.  Sharp Elites/Aquos as well as B&O can go from $5,000 to $9,000.

If you think about high end, usually the specialty home theater stores will carry the REAL high end.  The typical electronics super stores carry the low end to the medium priced products for TVs.  The people that buy high end want personal attention, they don't like going to big department stores and they are typically those that will pay someone to have the system delivered, installed, and setup because they have the money and don't have the time to do it themselves.  So, when you walk into a Best Buy and talk to the salesperson about high end.  They will talk about the high end THEY carry, but typically won't know much, if anything, about the REAL high end since they don't carry it.  Same thing with stereo equipment and home theater systems.  Even Magnolia doesn't carry the high end, they carry the entry level high end.  The REAL high end is only carried by specialty stores that are typically independently run.  First, one must define HIGH end.

post #87 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

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. 

Regarding the bolded:

Maybe no one has told you about an Apple product called the iPhone. When Apple introduced it, Jobs stated that the goal was to get 1-2% of the mobile phone market. That's hardly mainstream.

Or maybe you could look at the Mac. Apple has less than 5% of the worldwide market.

AirPort? Same thing. Only a tiny percentage of the router business.

I think you're missing what Apple's all about.
"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 #88 of 138

Apple has to catch up to these Samsung smart TVs.

post #89 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post
Apple has to catch up to these Samsung smart TVs.

 

Why? For what reason? And why does this 'catching up' require the introduction of an actual TV?

The Apple TV's interface, warts and all, is already a better experience than any of these smart TVs'. Add control-over-HDMI for volume and such and a television set becomes a pointless expense.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #90 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Munster also believes that an Apple television would have its own App Store for games, music, video and other content.

 

Tim Cook said this on Apple's FYQ2 earnings call on 4/24/2012:

 

"Anything can be forced to converge, but products are about tradeoffs.
You can converge a toaster and refrigerator, but those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."
 

He said the same thing at D10 recently.  And although both of those anti-convergence statements were made in the context of pad vs. desktop computing devices, I think Tim could be conditioning the media for a similar statement about the non-convergence of computing devices and television.  By issuing anti-convergence sound bites and having them quoted widely in the tech media, he and Apple must might be setting the stage for the big reveal.

 

Maybe the "lean forward" computing paradigm and the "lean back" TV viewing paradigms really can't successfully converge.  Maybe there will be a totally new category of app, specifically built just for HDTV.  And maybe those apps will only be allowed to fall into two categories: games and media streaming apps.  And who knows what other huge differences there will be between TV-only apps and iPad/iPhone apps?

 

I hate to say it, but another (potential) vast difference between iOS apps and TV apps will probably be iAd.  It's quite possible that all TV apps will be free and iAd-subsidized.  And iAd might replace conventional commercials in all content viewed on Apple TV and whatever the Apple HDTV solution might be.  That alone might be enough to prevent iOS apps and TV apps (and their respective App Stores) from converging.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #91 of 138

I'm with you. It's just not going to happen, unless something magical we haven't thought of paves the way.

post #92 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

If you think about high end, usually the specialty home theater stores will carry the REAL high end.  The typical electronics super stores carry the low end to the medium priced products for TVs.  The people that buy high end want personal attention, they don't like going to big department stores and they are typically those that will pay someone to have the system delivered, installed, and setup because they have the money and don't have the time to do it themselves.  So, when you walk into a Best Buy and talk to the salesperson about high end.  They will talk about the high end THEY carry, but typically won't know much, if anything, about the REAL high end since they don't carry it.  Same thing with stereo equipment and home theater systems.  Even Magnolia doesn't carry the high end, they carry the entry level high end.  The REAL high end is only carried by specialty stores that are typically independently run.  First, one must define HIGH end.

I personally think that if Apple does put out HDTV's, that they will try to figure out a way to make it compete (quality of picture/mfg/styling) to that of Loewe, Sharp Elite Pro and B&O, but have it priced more like the Samsung ES8000 series is my guess.  They WILL NOT put out something with cheap PCBs and electronics.  It won't be made from plastic or cheap metal and they will try to figure out a way to make it a nicely styled product to go along with the rest of their product line, but to be able to compete, they'll have to bring the price down below $4,000 for a 60 or 65 inch screen.

 

The unfortunate thing is that the typical HDTV buyer THINKS that $4,000 is too expensive and a waste of money because they are more concerned with size rather than picture quality or quality of the components because they are easily brainwashed by the mass merchandisers. In ANYTHING, there is a problem with diminishing returns.  In order to get high quality or a small improvement, it costs a LOT more.  Just like cars.  You can get a great car for $50K, but to get something a little better, it's going to cost $100K, then to get something a little better than that, you have to spend $250K and to get a little better you have to spend $500K and then to get something a little better you have to spend $1Mil.  Well, Mercedes will sell tons of $50K cars, less $100K, a bunch of $200K compared to Bugattii selling a few $1Mil cars. Same rules apply to TV and stereo equipment, but there is a market, it just depends on how many Apple plans on selling.  They have to determine what size screens, but at what price point that makes sense.   The sub $2,000 TVs aren't that great in terms of quality and reliability.

post #93 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Unless, of course, you can't see the difference anyway, which many would have you believe.

Not sure if a person could not see the difference between HD and SD would really be in the market for a high end HDTV? And the person I responded to made reference to VHS, so if they can see the difference from that, better just save the money and watch video on an iPad.

post #94 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

One of the problems with plasma is that they have to be calibrated every so often and they are very delicate when shipping and handling.  They can't put the TV sideways, otherwise it could damage it.  B&O's 85 and 103 inch are around the $100K price range and not many people can afford those, if they could they would probably elect to have a projection system in a dedicated home theater, or they are just stupid rich and want the most expensive TV's you can get.  They are cool, but at a price only a handful can afford and actually pay for.


Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?

post #95 of 138

$2,000 for a 55 inch TV?  They would have to get the panels awfully cheap in order to do that.  Look at the Thunderbolt monitor.  That thing has a 27 inch screen size for $1000.  how can Apple put out a Smart TV with a decent 55 inch panel for only $2,000?  Impossible.  Unless it is a cheap plastic case, a cheap panel, and cheap motherboards.  It sounds like they just got their 420 card.

post #96 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?

Check out the B&O 85 and 100 inch models.  They have a calibration camera that automatically pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen.  It's FREAKING COOL, but it is EXPENSIVE.

 

Plus you have to pay a ton of money for someone to come out to your house to see if the doorway is big enough, to see if the floor is strong enough, and it gets shipped in a BIG wooden crate and they probably have at least a couple of trained factory guys come out, bring it into your house, uncrate it, set it up and run through all of the options.  It's meant for people that have TONS of money and want the coolest stuff.  (But, I wouldn't buy their sound systems, they only have marginal high end audio, but it does have the cool factor).

post #97 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Look at the Thunderbolt monitor.  That thing has a 27 inch screen size for $1000.

 

TV panels and monitor panels are entirely different worlds. Note also that the Thunderbolt display is a higher resolution than a TV would be.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #98 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Newer plasmas don't.

post #99 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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. lol.gif

Facetime?  Well, I think that a lot of corporations, hospitals, government, and schools would buy these things and use them for video conferencing.   See, think outside the home, but in other environments.

post #100 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Facetime?  Well, I think that a lot of corporations, hospitals, government, and schools would buy these things and use them for video conferencing.   See, think outside the home, but in other environments.

 

I've read that businesses are terrified of that idea and wouldn't want it at all. Perhaps I read wrong.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #101 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Check out the B&O 85 and 100 inch models.  They have a calibration camera that automatically pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen.  It's FREAKING COOL, but it is EXPENSIVE.

 

Plus you have to pay a ton of money for someone to come out to your house to see if the doorway is big enough, to see if the floor is strong enough, and it gets shipped in a BIG wooden crate and they probably have at least a couple of trained factory guys come out, bring it into your house, uncrate it, set it up and run through all of the options.  It's meant for people that have TONS of money and want the coolest stuff.  (But, I wouldn't buy their sound systems, they only have marginal high end audio, but it does have the cool factor).


Oh, some 85 and 100 inch plasma TV has a camera that pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen and therefore plasma TVs have to be calibrated every so often and are very delicate when shipping and handling. Um, I don't think so.

post #102 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Facetime?  Well, I think that a lot of corporations, hospitals, government, and schools would buy these things and use them for video conferencing.   See, think outside the home, but in other environments.

Why, when there's much less expensive alternatives
"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 #103 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Check out the B&O 85 and 100 inch models.  They have a calibration camera that automatically pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen.  It's FREAKING COOL, but it is EXPENSIVE.

Plus you have to pay a ton of money for someone to come out to your house to see if the doorway is big enough, to see if the floor is strong enough, and it gets shipped in a BIG wooden crate and they probably have at least a couple of trained factory guys come out, bring it into your house, uncrate it, set it up and run through all of the options.  It's meant for people that have TONS of money and want the coolest stuff.  (But, I wouldn't buy their sound systems, they only have marginal high end audio, but it does have the cool factor).

I think it's likely that B&O is selling a solution to a problem that might not really exist to help sell their product. If it does exist, then any LCD with a phosphor based backlight (non-RGB LED and fluorescent tube backlights) would also need a similar periodic adjustment because phosphors shift in color and intensity as it is used.
post #104 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Apple, FORTUNATELY, uses high quality PCBs and components and rarely has failure.
http://www.cultofmac.com/61338/nvidia-settles-class-action-lawsuit-over-macbook-pro-gpus/
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #105 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.
People were quite happy paying $4K for a 55" TV only 5 years ago...
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #106 of 138

 

I'll direct your attention to the third to last word in his sentence.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #107 of 138

I'm not saying Apple isn't coming out with a nicely sized HD TV, but I wonder why they would even try. Samsung and Sony are going to try to increase prices 10% so they can make a little coin. If I were Apple, I'd stick with the external box. Let Samsung and Sony and others crank out the low margin TVs and instead focus on providing content. I want to watch what I want, when I want.

 

Plasma, LCD, OLED, 60", 80", 100". This industry obsoletes their own products quickly while chasing margins down to zero. Apple can do a lot with the little black box, and make money doing it. It's in the same way they do not make their own CPUs. They build nice hardware that goes around that motherboard and provide compelling secret sauce to make it work.

post #108 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

I'm not saying Apple isn't coming out with a nicely sized HD TV, but I wonder why they would even try. Samsung and Sony are going to try to increase prices 10% so they can make a little coin. If I were Apple, I'd stick with the external box. Let Samsung and Sony and others crank out the low margin TVs and instead focus on providing content. I want to watch what I want, when I want.

Plasma, LCD, OLED, 60", 80", 100". This industry obsoletes their own products quickly while chasing margins down to zero. Apple can do a lot with the little black box, and make money doing it. It's in the same way they do not make their own CPUs. They build nice hardware that goes around that motherboard and provide compelling secret sauce to make it work.

Your argument applies equally to phones and computers. No one else (besides Samsung) is making money in phones and the profit in computers is very low for most companies. Apple has demonstrated the ability to make money even in markets where few, if any, other companies are.

I certainly can't say whether Apple should introduce a TV because I don't have access to the market information and I also don't have any idea what technology they'd bring to the table. But the argument that they shouldn't enter the market because some other companies are losing money doesn't wash.
"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 #109 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

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.

 

Why can't Apple do this with the existing AppleTV?

post #110 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
Why can't Apple do this with the existing AppleTV?

 

They can. People just want to waste their money on a TV because it has an Apple logo, apparently.

 

Oi! People planning to respond negatively to my statement: I'm an Apple evangelist in everything but official title. Shame they don't give that out officially anymore, isn't it? 

 

I sure as heck hope Apple doesn't think about getting into the accessory market again… 

 

A television set is an accessory.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #111 of 138

I think many on here agree with you. My gut just says to stick with the magic external box that sprinkles Apple pixie dust upon any TV, offering what we want without them having to spend a lot to make a little.

 

I remember when Apple moved to Intel from PPC and Steve Jobs was on stage, allaying our fears that Apple would not be able to upgrade quickly enough to stay relevant, allowing the PC competition to stay one or more steps ahead. He promised more rapid updates in the hardware, keeping up with the latest and greatest.

 

I know the arguments both ways. And I do feel that Apple has intentions to come out with a big TV. I know the arguments we make apply to a lot of other products, as Jragosta points out. But it seems the higher up Apple goes on retail, the slower the updates materialize. So it was easier to imagine Apple's presence in the music payer market. But Apple really shined in the high end because it turned out people were willing to pay for the features it offered. They didn't dabble in the low end until much later.

 

With PCs, Apple stayed true to its word. The Intel iMacs kept pace with the hardware innovations and offered a compelling value. The MacPros were upgraded less often and by the end of their life seemed outdated and relatively expensive.

 

The good news is TVs do not see rapid turnover. But innovations do come quickly. I can imagine we'll be watching Apple, wondering when they are going to update their XYZ line to match the recent innovations from another player. It just seems like Apple is going to have to spend a lot to make a little.

 

I wonder if they simply focused on the magic box if it wouldn't be more profitable in the long run.

post #112 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Regarding the bolded:
Maybe no one has told you about an Apple product called the iPhone. When Apple introduced it, Jobs stated that the goal was to get 1-2% of the mobile phone market. That's hardly mainstream.
Or maybe you could look at the Mac. Apple has less than 5% of the worldwide market.
AirPort? Same thing. Only a tiny percentage of the router business.
I think you're missing what Apple's all about.

 

I'm going to hazard that these high end TVs are far less than 1% of the market.  Likewise with all the videophile HDTVs.

 

The iPhone was and is a mainstream device.  The high end of mainstream but mainstream none the less.  They aren't selling Vertu like phones.

 

 

The Mac is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling supercomputers or embedded computers for missiles.
 
The Airport is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling long haul DWDM gear.
 

You like telling folks they don't know what Apple is about but you write complete nonsense like this.

 

You could argue that they will price the mythical top end Apple HDTV like a top end Sony 64.5" XDR for $5500 but there will be a $2999 60" model and a $1999 55" model to make sure they sell a lot more than the 2.7M aTVs sold in 1H 2012 just like there is a $1199 iMac.  

 

For reference, the Sony 60" LED KDL-60EX723 is $2299 on the Sony Store with a free wall mount.  The 54.6" KDL-55BX520 is a mere $1199 and comes with a free wall mount.

 

An XBR quality 55" Apple branded HDTV for $1500-$2000 would sell reasonably well and be a mainstream product.

 

 

Apple won't touch the uber high end market (videophile and/or folks with tons of money) because they sell to consumers and not installers.  Pretty much all the top end video gear is sold via installers and installers insist on a protected channel.

 

I still think the idea is silly but meh...they could sell XBR quality at mid range prices and completely hose the TV makers like Samsung and Sony.  The margins on the $3500 54.6" XBR HX929 are probably very comfortably above 30%.  

 

The only reason I can think of is if the IGZO panels are exceptionally good for TVs and the new Sharp/Foxconn partnership has allowed Apple to corner the market on this.  The "core" technology for HDTVs.  I don't buy it though.  If it were that big a competitive advantage Sharp wouldn't be all that willing to share. 

post #113 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post
I wonder if they simply focused on the magic box if it wouldn't be more profitable in the long run.

 

And it will be, they just need total upheaval. How do they do that? With perfect software and the perfect content deals. Just like they did with music in 2003.

 

"People who write software should want to make their own hardware." Of course. The Apple TV is that hardware, not some dumb panel.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #114 of 138
What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?

SJ and Jony Ives have always stayed steadfast to their common philosophy, that it's more important what you leave out and throw away in a product. What if the working components were really in a slide in break out box? Apple does have a patent for this already, and it was thought that they would do this eventually with sliding in iPhones, or when i saw it it, the then rumoured iPad.

Or what if all of the controls are really just an App that truly interfaces with the iPanel?

Where's Dick and Soli, the other 'ol dudes' that still kknow how to "Think Different"? :}
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 #115 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I'm going to hazard that these high end TVs are far less than 1% of the market.  Likewise with all the videophile HDTVs.

The iPhone was and is a mainstream device.  The high end of mainstream but mainstream none the less.  They aren't selling Vertu like phones.


The Mac is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling supercomputers or embedded computers for missiles.
 
The Airport is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling long haul DWDM gear.
 
You like telling folks they don't know what Apple is about but you write complete nonsense like this.

Yet you haven't explained how there's any difference.

The phone was a mainstream device. When Apple started, they set out to capture the top 1% of the market - and they did so.

The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.

So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?

Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?

That's been around for quite a while. It's still possible to buy a monitor and use it as your TV set. In fact, at least one of our sets is actually a monitor rather than a TV. I don't see anything particularly novel about Apple doing that.
"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 #116 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?
SJ and Jony Ives have always stayed steadfast to their common philosophy, that it's more important what you leave out and throw away in a product. What if the working components were really in a slide in break out box? Apple does have a patent for this already, and it was thought that they would do this eventually with sliding in iPhones, or when i saw it it, the then rumoured iPad.
Or what if all of the controls are really just an App that truly interfaces with the iPanel?
Where's Dick and Soli, the other 'ol dudes' that still kknow how to "Think Different"? :}
I certainly don't see it and have asked for years, on this forum, how this could actually work as a business model. The only poster I recall thinking different has been Ireland that literally thinks it will come to pass without a single port on the device, only a plug for power. I simply can't see how that will work on any level.

The rumour of this TV has gotten so big that historically it does mean there is an Apple HDTV in the works and gearing up to be sold but even when taking a position of it happening and then trying to shoehorn it into a model I still can't find a solution that is remotely viable. There stores don't seem capable of storing and selling the HW. There seems to be no reason outside of reducing one remote (which you never have to use outside of the initial setup) and an integrated FaceTime camera that make this better than what an Apple TV can offer right now.

I want the TV to just be a dumb monitor of which I can choose any number of sizes. And I want the Apple TV box to be between the display and several boxes (like cable/sat, Ti-Vo, and Blu-ray) that plug into the Apple TV box. This way the Apple TV UI will always be an overlay to what you are watching so you can get updates and notifications and you'll never have to switch inputs to see the Apple TV data.

That, however, is my secondary option as I'd ideally like to have the Apple TV UI on the cable/sat box itself, but I know first hand and know of too many issues with trying to get them to offer that box. Can Apple make a box that will cover all US cable and sat company needs? Are cable cards good enough now to be a good option for Apple?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.
I believe that was 92% and that was many years ago. Unfortunately there is a more current stat but I have to assume it will be even higher now. There was also a chart that Apple take 1/3 of all profit from the PC business worldwide. I also assume that has grown, too.
Quote:
So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?
Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
From Apple's perspective it isn't the same thing. They've entered markets as legs for their stools where there have been massive profits to be made. They've been alright with low volume sales so long as they were selling the best product. Does that work the same way in the HDTV business? Do the companies selling the best product make a great profit on TVs?

If Apple does enter this market I think it's clear that they think they can have great margins and make a billions doing it, but from our PoV we need to determine if they will. Are there companies that sell the displays to others for TVs that actually make a good profit or is the profit held by those that make the displays?

Let's assume for a minute this is going to happen in 2012 or 2013. How will this be achievable? What is Apple's angle here? What will they offer that others have not? On Friday I did a lot of driving; so much so that I was able to listen to all of the audio from Steve Jobs at All Things D. What he stated over-and-over again was that it's all about the software. So where is the software that will make someone ditch a $99 box for a $2000 TV? Where is the software that will make someone put a 55" (what I read will be the bare minimum size) in their den or bedroom where it's too large or in some other room where it simply doesn't fit right? Remember that TVs, among all other electronics today are oft purchased because of the room space they will occupy.

PS: I'm also still waiting on a viable answer to what nut Apple/Jobs could have cracked. Personally I think it has to do with getting around the content companies not the obvious and simple solution of sticking an Apple TV into an HDTV.

"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 #117 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

From Apple's perspective it isn't the same thing. They've entered markets as legs for their stools where there have been massive profits to be made. They've been alright with low volume sales so long as they were selling the best product. Does that work the same way in the HDTV business? Do the companies selling the best product make a great profit on TVs?

From Apple's perspective, it's exactly the same thing.

A decade ago, the MP3 player market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPod - which did very well.

Five years ago, the mobile phone market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPhone - which did very well.

A few years ago, the PC tablet market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPad - which did very well.

Today, the TV market is a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. The market dynamics are not that different from what Apple has been doing for the past decade.

Why is everyone saying that the TV market is so unrelated to anything Apple has done? It's not. (And the argument that it's more expensive doesn't wash, either. Apple sells plenty of computers in the $2 K range. Even the iPhone at $650-850 and the iPad which is pushing $1 K at the high end are in the same ballpark when you consider that most people replace their phones every couple of years but keep TVs much longer.

Not that I'm not saying that it's going to happen. I don't have any idea what Apple might have in their labs or what price point they would be able to hit while maintaining profit margins. But to immediately discard the idea because it's so 'different' is just wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If Apple does enter this market I think it's clear that they think they can have great margins and make a billions doing it, but from our PoV we need to determine if they will. Are there companies that sell the displays to others for TVs that actually make a good profit or is the profit held by those that make the displays?
Let's assume for a minute this is going to happen in 2012 or 2013. How will this be achievable? What is Apple's angle here? What will they offer that others have not? On Friday I did a lot of driving; so much so that I was able to listen to all of the audio from Steve Jobs at All Things D. What he stated over-and-over again was that it's all about the software. So where is the software that will make someone ditch a $99 box for a $2000 TV? Where is the software that will make someone put a 55" (what I read will be the bare minimum size) in their den or bedroom where it's too large or in some other room where it simply doesn't fit right? Remember that TVs, among all other electronics today are oft purchased because of the room space they will occupy.
PS: I'm also still waiting on a viable answer to what nut Apple/Jobs could have cracked. Personally I think it has to do with getting around the content companies not the obvious and simple solution of sticking an Apple TV into an HDTV.

I don't have any idea - which is why I can't predict what Apple will do. But it's not completely implausible.

If I had to guess, I would venture that the 'nut' Jobs claims to have cracked has to do with ease of use, simplicity, and integration. For a pretty substantial portion of the population, current TVs are far too complicated. My mother wouldn't even have a DVD player in her house until one of the kids programmed a remote so that she could do both the TV and the DVD player from a single remote. I have to laugh every time my ex tried to watch a movie. She couldn't figure out how to change from one device to the other - and I even programmed a Harmony remote to automate the process. The current TV system is inordinately complex and difficult compared to a Jobsian ideal. Even the idea of using the Apple TV in combination with a conventional TV set is more complicated than if everything is included in a single device.

Only time will tell.
"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 #118 of 138
@Soli - thanks as always for your input as always 1smile.gif

I'm actually going to side with Ireland this time, in that there will be no connectors of any kind on the TV itself save for a power connector. I'm even going to jump off the deep end, and say that the power cable will be either: a) to charge the panel only, or b) be as thin and easy as a MagSafe or 30-pin dock connector now.

I have a question for the tech gurus here: how much juice would a 36", 45", or even a 55" screen need for 5-8 hours of "on time"?

What if the only components in the iPanel itself were the batteries (possibly?), a wifi chip, and stereo speakers? How much would that cost?

I'm thinking the naysayers making statements similar to the last time with the iPad; "it's just a giant iPhone without the phone part", now is replaced with, "it's just a giant iPad without the touch UI"... or even "it's just a digital picture frame with a wifi connection and *speakers".

SJ was well known for a few guiding principles that dictated Apple's products, not least of which:

a) he hated cables(!)... and b) he loved "thin", "connected" and "wireless.

There is nothing uglier and more demanding of the placement of your entertainment system than the power outlets and the sat, cable, and stereo connection coming into a room. Imagine with an Apple iPanel being able to be free to hang it like a picture, or stand it on a table, dresser, where ever... without worrying... at all... about all of the cables needed to use it. Actually, the iPanel could be seen as a giant "mobile device" for the home, garden, garage, den. OK, granted the 55" would not be... but a 36" would only be as heavy as a normal picture in a glass frame.

He said it is always about the software and user interface, coupled with the hardware. What if he found a way to hijack all of the trash UI's in an entertainment system, and replace it with an Apple UI? I mentioned this earlier in the thread. There is nothing worse with current TV and Entertainment systems than all of the assorted remotes and GUI's.

*Speakers: while included in the iPanel for stand-alone usage, and optically connected with a stereo system in the main room, naturally I would expect Airport Express and anything wifi connected and using AirPlay could be used to output "higher" fidelity sound.

A box to control them all so-to-speak, and the only "part" of the Apple entertainment system that would be updated and/or replaced every 1-2 years. Apple also thinks "green", so I certainly wouldn't expect them to create such a large all-in-one landfill device every 2 years. It also doesn't fit their logistics or upgrade model at all. But a device not much larger (but probably not square) than a Mac Mini with every connector you need? That could work.

Naturally, Apple will surely do something to lock in the user and the devices. "iEntertain" would be 2 parts, that would need each other to work: the iPanel and the iDockTV box at a minimum. You got the iPanel, now you just replace the iDock for ~500,- every couple of years.

It goes without saying that the iPanel/iDock is fully iOS compatible. Apps and Airplay and iTunes Store... oh my! 1smile.gif

Sorry for the long "brainstorm".
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 #119 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yet you haven't explained how there's any difference.
The phone was a mainstream device. When Apple started, they set out to capture the top 1% of the market - and they did so.
The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.
So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?
Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
That's been around for quite a while. It's still possible to buy a monitor and use it as your TV set. In fact, at least one of our sets is actually a monitor rather than a TV. I don't see anything particularly novel about Apple doing that.

 

The difference is that you said it wasn't mainstream and because you poo-poo'd the idea that the cost would be competitive.  An Apple HDTV is not going to cost more than a Sony XBR and likely will cost a lot less.  A 55" Apple HDTV won't cost the $3500 that Sony asks for their 55" XBR but likely will be comparable in quality (at least screen quality).  A 55" Apple HDTV priced at $3500 isn't going to capture 1% of sales...23M units.  $2000 is possible.  That's still $800 more than the lowest end Sony 55" TV but still within that viable price range for volume.

 

Even then it's still questionable how successful it would be both in terms of volume and profit.  And no one has answered the question how a $2000 55" Apple HDTV is superior for either Apple or the consumer than a $2000 Sony HDTV and a $99 aTV beyond a box the size of a hockey puck, one power cord and HDMI cable.  The Apple HDTV would have a higher ASP and therefore higher 1st year revenue and profits but at the cost of agility for Apple. 

 

That cost is HUGE.  They can afford to ship a new aTV for $99 with greater processing power, storage, whatever any time they want and instead of a lot of grumbling that Apple has obsoleted a $2000 purchase folks will want to hand over another $99 for the improvements.  $99 every couple years x 2-3 HDTVs in the house is far more lucrative than $2000 every 5-10 years in terms of footprint (how many households would buy into Apple TV), agility and replacement cycle.

 

Like I said, unless the IGZO panels or some other thing really has some huge advantage for HDTVs there's really no reason to prefer an Apple HDTV over a Samsung HDTV with a aTV attached.   I just don't see Apple getting the content required to remove all the other boxes from the equation.

post #120 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

@Soli - thanks as always for your input as always 1smile.gif
I'm actually going to side with Ireland this time, in that there will be no connectors of any kind on the TV itself save for a power connector. I'm even going to jump off the deep end, and say that the power cable will be either: a) to charge the panel only, or b) be as thin and easy as a MagSafe or 30-pin dock connector now.

I don't think so, at least not the 30 pin connector. Much of the power in an iPad 3 is used simply to power the display and backlight. A 50" TV would use approximately 25 times the power. You're limited with iPad charging rates by how fast you can charge through a 30 pin connector - and it takes 8 hours to charge an iPad. It would take days to charge your system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I have a question for the tech gurus here: how much juice would a 36", 45", or even a 55" screen need for 5-8 hours of "on time"?

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding why in the world you'd want to have a 36-55" TV that was battery powered. It's far too large to be portable, so the advantage of battery power is non-existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

What if the only components in the iPanel itself were the batteries (possibly?), a wifi chip, and stereo speakers? How much would that cost?.

Plus the CPU to decode the signal. Essentially, everything that a modern TV has. TVs could be made more energy efficient, perhaps, but not all that much until some new technologies are developed.
"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
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'