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".
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?
I was responding to a blanket statement that asserted: "Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. "
I know all about high-end, large, 3D plasmas. I have one. (And, believe it or not, the 3D is quite amazing.... but can't have it on for long spells).
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.
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.
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.
Unless, of course, you can't see the difference anyway, which many would have you believe.
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.
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.
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.
Tim Cook said this on Apple's FYQ2 earnings call on 4/24/2012:
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
Sent from my iPhone Simulator
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.
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.
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?
$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.
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).
TV panels and monitor panels are entirely different worlds. Note also that the Thunderbolt display is a higher resolution than a TV would be.
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. 
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.
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.
MacBook Pro (work) | iMac (late 2012) | iPad 2
MacBook Pro (work) | iMac (late 2012) | iPad 2
I'll direct your attention to the third to last word in his sentence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
