Smart TV makers forming alliances out of fear Apple will soon dominate their industry too - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wovel 

Collusion with the stated intent of thwarting competition.  What could go wrong?

 

I am not sure Apple plans to make a TV anyway.  They plan to change the entire industry.

 

Like Apple did with Music and Amazon did with books.  It is not all about, or even primarily about the device.

Agreed.  Apple doesn't care about the TV, it cares about the value chain.

Producers

Studios

Syndicators

Networks

Delivery (local media, Cable, Satellite, Internet, Torrenters)

Consumer.

What does the consumer want?   They want to ala carte a bunch of movies and TV series into 'MyPersonalMediaChannels' (MyTV is tmed by someone).  What is that... Sort of like the new PodCast plus Genius ("You like 'BreakingBad and Kill Bill Pt3?   you may like....")

It's less about the TV, and more about the content bundling.   an iOS device (or a new Mac App to replace iTunes) to manage it, the cloud to capture and deliver it, and the appleID account to pay for it. at $1.99-$3.99 per hour.  (with Movies being 8-10/hour...and cable running $80/month ($1/hour?), this is a pretty good in the ball park pricing.

The kicker is 'Live TV'  People want to watch it at moment of delivery and/or DVR it....  How does Apple do that?  (an antenna connection to an AppleTV box with Channel management DVR capabilities?) 

Bottom line... It's all about the content.  If Apple can get Disney (best friend in the business) to swing a deal, then the others may follow... But in the end, it's all about cutting out either Cable providers and/or networks.    If Apple can do to video media what they did to music, the whole world will be set on it's ear.

You can already buy voice and motion controlled smart TVs today from some very well respected TV manufacturers. It will be interesting to see how Apple differentiates their Apple TV offering. It's not like the iPhone or iPad were there wasn't any real competition because Apple was ahead of the curve, unless of course they come up with something totally ground breaking.

"The sources said the alliances are also forming as Apple is preparing to release a smart TV. Due to Apple's influence in the market, the sources fear it will further dominate the smart TV market, which is estimated to reach a 40% penetration rate by 2014."

And why are we supposed to believe that? Smart TVs have been on the cusp of acceptance for more than a decade. WebTV anyone? Smart TVs aren't getting any traction. People keep predicting success, on the theory that people will only remember that one time they were right and not the dozens of times they were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


The Apple automobile
The Apple personal water craft
The Apple biplane
The Apple space shuttle
The Apple sex doll
The Apple fashion accessories
The Apple living room sofa
There's no end to the kind of silly rumors that people could start.

Well again, the road map is pretty clear, and obvious : Star Trek !

(research going on for the HoloSuite, at the moment)

Again, look at Star trek (Image In the Sand iPad ) :

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


That's not exactly true. I recently purchased a Panasonic plasma and have since received one update. So it looks like at least Panasonic is getting on the ball instead of getting run over by it.

There are some companies out there providing this type of support in a very limited fashion. Their problem is that they have MANY product lines and it would be, and is, very difficult for them to keep up with every product they release.

I'm thinking an Apple TV line would be similar to the iPhone strategy where they are all the same except for the choice in capacity, but with the TV you would have the choice in screen size instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


The Apple automobile
The Apple personal water craft
The Apple biplane
The Apple space shuttle
The Apple sex doll
The Apple fashion accessories
The Apple living room sofa
There's no end to the kind of silly rumors that people could start.

Pretty sure they have that, its called the iPhone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Apple gets 30% of all transactions. As it's their standard contract, no one can do squat about it.

 

Apple singlehandedly pays off the entirety of the national debt less than a year later. That's WITH the Medicare stuff they never report (the hundred trillion we actually owe).

Apple gets 30% from the seller of the stuff...

Add banking... Apple can also get another 1-3% from the merchant if they become the funding clearing house (Visa).   And/or they can issue an 'Apple Card' and front you the money at 12%APR  interest (better than the 1% they are getting now on their idle cash).   'Apple Finance' now takes say $25Billion of their cash reserves and loans you the money as well for your NFC, iTMS, AppStore, Passbook purchases.

If they earn 10% APR on that $25Billion... plus the 1-3% bypassing Visa for big players (Ticket Master, Starbucks, whatever is in China, Europe) that's 2.5-3B a year.  better than what they are getting now with that money.

The TV is for watching.

Not navigating.

It doesnt matter whether someone has "cracked" the UI.
 

Most of the time the viewer is watching the programs rather than navigating to get to the content itself.

Therefore, the bigger importance is the picture quality and the set design rather than the UI.

Talking of the occasional company failure... the 1994 QuickTake series of digital cameras were none-too successful for Apple with only a three-year production run... but it could be a sector for Apple to revisit (with their undoubted "halo effect") for a mid-to-high-end camera developed with their superb technology and cool design team. Nothing out-and-out professional (heavy and tough), nor soccer-mom (compact with a wide-range zoom), but a DSLR with a useful range of lenses appealing to the advanced amateur / semi-pro user. Strangely, Samsung created a "different looking" DSLR, starting with their NX10, a couple of years ago - which would not be confused by lawyers at ten paces with any other DSLR camera on the market - and which should have done much better than sales show... however neither does their publicity machine appear to want to promote it, nor major retailers stock it. Pity really, it's a product with many positive reviews.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi 
Therefore, the bigger importance is the picture quality and the set design rather than the UI.

Those are the two least important aspects of any change to television.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wovel 

Collusion with the stated intent of thwarting competition.  What could go wrong?

I guess the DoJ will be all over this, any second now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Those are the two least important aspects of any change to television.

Right, because after the advent of the interactive menu system on newer TV's, people jumped into the HDTV realm.

I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this one.

People switched in mass to HDTV due to PICTURE QUALITY improvement.

That was and is there biggest reason (followed by picture size) in changing their television.

The only people willing to make the switch will be those who are four legged, white furs used for textiles industry and make the sound "meeh" over and over again.

Regarding, AI's misleading title, the only major television manufacturer who formed this "alliance" was LG.

The title should read, LG forms TV alliance, not "TV makers" with a plural.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

 

EDIT: Uh… hello? Huddler? Animated GIF? So… animate it… 

 

EDIT: Ugh… Do I like that the new editor works with Safari 6 again? Sure. Would I trade all of those features away to have the old image uploader back? The one that actually works? …Maybe.

When you upload an image it creates a poster image and links it to the actual upload. If you want the actual upload in the message you need to edit the post and drag the real image into it. Kind of a hassle....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

You can already buy voice and motion controlled smart TVs today from some very well respected TV manufacturers. It will be interesting to see how Apple differentiates their Apple TV offering. It's not like the iPhone or iPad were there wasn't any real competition because Apple was ahead of the curve, unless of course they come up with something totally ground breaking.

You can't name a manufacturer in your quote.  As I stated earlier... I don't think the TV will be the differentiator.  It will be how you get media to the TV.

At the time of the iPod they said that it was 'lame'  (/. CmdrTaco), in that the market had 'better' solutions available.

At the time of iTMS,  people said no one would buy music that was DRMed.

At the time of the iPhone, there was Nokia, Microsoft, Palm, and RIM all stating that Apple couldn't sell a smart phone.

At the time of the iPad, HP, Microsoft, RIM were were stating that Apple couldn't sell a 'tablet' (and they didn't).

Almost every time... it wasn't so much 'groundbreaking' as it was a 'compelling experience for the common person.'  My 80yo mother can use a Mac, her iPod, and her iPad.  She learned all of this after the age of 65.   Before then, she was scared of PCs, using an electric typewriter.  I don't support her anymore... my 12yo nephew is her tech support for her iPad and Mac.

My parents don't have cable... why... too many channels.  But they watch their news on their iPad.   I see the 'touch with finger and get' interface of the iPad making their TV life much easier.  It's balancing Boxee/NetFlix/Roku/SlingBox/ITMS together with the ability to DVR 'local/live' stuff.     Seems like a no brainer for a TV with a couple of processors and a Antenna, knowledge of your connection (Cable plan, and OTA channels), a bit of intelligence to find when shows 'start', and a couple of GB of local storage for local live, and cloud storage for 'national-live' and agreements for content for the rest.

Samsung ain't gonna do that.   Nor is LG, or Sony.   Because they don't _care_ about  end to end experience. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi 
Right, because after the advent of the interactive menu system on newer TV's, people jumped into the HDTV realm.

 

People switched in mass to HDTV due to PICTURE QUALITY improvement.

 

That was and is there biggest reason (followed by picture size) in changing their television.

But people can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. It doesn't matter how big the TV is, and even larger qualities are useless, so that can't be it.

Or so I'm told.

I'm saying nowhere that a revamped UI will be the big draw. It's important, more so than what you've said, but less than the real reason to bother with reinventing the concept of television.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

But people can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. It doesn't matter how big the TV is, and even larger qualities are useless, so that can't be it.

 

Or so I'm told.

 

I'm saying nowhere that a revamped UI will be the big draw. It's important, more so than what you've said, but less than the real reason to bother with reinventing the concept of television.

I'm talking about the switch from SD to HD. 

You are comparing HD to HD.

720P is regarded as "HD". 1080 is "full HD". Does that mean 720 is "half HD"?

Picture quality is THE most important reason people changed to HD instead of SD television. No one could care less about UI. It's a consumption device. You sit and wait and let the content feed your brain. There is hardly any interaction. Of course TV makers think otherwise in order for them to jack up prices so they can puff up their profit margins. Making all sorts of marketing jargons and scenarios where you NEED to purchase a "smart TV". I'd say its total BS.

As many others have mentioned, why make the whole screen when the main component of differentiation is the software which fits in a small black box. The only way Apple is going to improve the user experience in television is to partner with the cable companies just like they are doing with the textbook publishers and iBooks Author. They need to redesign the cable box and make an attractive offer to the cable providers to opt in. Otherwise they will be blocked because the cable/telco companies own the fiber in the street.

I always thought the reason Google paid so much for Motorola was because they would get a foot in the door with the set top box industry. Again the hardware is easy, it is the software and the partnerships that take a lot of work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Those are the two least important aspects of any change to television.

Don't follow that. When I'm looking for a new TV the two things I look for are picture quality and set design. Everything else is less important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi 
I'm talking about the switch from SD to HD. 

 

You are comparing HD to HD.

Your implication is that what I'm saying is any different from what you're saying. I fail to see how.

Thanks for continuing to talk about something about which I'm not talking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MojoRisinSD 

The way I see it is that Apple realizes the big cable providers will not be able to hold on forever... just like the music companies when MP3 started getting popular. No matter how hard the providers want to fight it, a BIG change is coming! I would say in the next 5 years things are going to be very different. So if Apple can get in on the ground floor, or build it, they will in a heartbeat.

 

The major problem isn't necessarily the "Smart TV" interfaces or the apps on them (even though they are terrible), it is the standard cable box and it's ancient interface. If Apple figures out how to integrate the cable box with the guide into the TV in an elegant way and also bring the App Store on board, they would instantly have something that no major player has been able to do yet. If that happens, I will drop my 5 year old Bravia in a heartbeat.

In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff 

 

You can't name a manufacturer in your quote.  As I stated earlier... I don't think the TV will be the differentiator.  It will be how you get media to the TV.

 

At the time of the iPod they said that it was 'lame'  (/. CmdrTaco), in that the market had 'better' solutions available.

 

At the time of iTMS,  people said no one would buy music that was DRMed.

 

At the time of the iPhone, there was Nokia, Microsoft, Palm, and RIM all stating that Apple couldn't sell a smart phone.

 

At the time of the iPad, HP, Microsoft, RIM were were stating that Apple couldn't sell a 'tablet' (and they didn't).

 

Almost every time... it wasn't so much 'groundbreaking' as it was a 'compelling experience for the common person.'  My 80yo mother can use a Mac, her iPod, and her iPad.  She learned all of this after the age of 65.   Before then, she was scared of PCs, using an electric typewriter.  I don't support her anymore... my 12yo nephew is her tech support for her iPad and Mac.

 

My parents don't have cable... why... too many channels.  But they watch their news on their iPad.   I see the 'touch with finger and get' interface of the iPad making their TV life much easier.  It's balancing Boxee/NetFlix/Roku/SlingBox/ITMS together with the ability to DVR 'local/live' stuff.     Seems like a no brainer for a TV with a couple of processors and a Antenna, knowledge of your connection (Cable plan, and OTA channels), a bit of intelligence to find when shows 'start', and a couple of GB of local storage for local live, and cloud storage for 'national-live' and agreements for content for the rest.

 

Samsung ain't gonna do that.   Nor is LG, or Sony.   Because they don't _care_ about  end to end experience. 

You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi 

Right, because after the advent of the interactive menu system on newer TV's, people jumped into the HDTV realm.

 

I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this one.

 

People switched in mass to HDTV due to PICTURE QUALITY improvement.

 

That was and is there biggest reason (followed by picture size) in changing their television.

 

The only people willing to make the switch will be those who are four legged, white furs used for textiles industry and make the sound "meeh" over and over again.

 

 

 

Regarding, AI's misleading title, the only major television manufacturer who formed this "alliance" was LG.

 

The title should read, LG forms TV alliance, not "TV makers" with a plural.

LG and Philips.  Takes 2 to form an alliance.  TP/Phillips is real player.

I really think AppleTV boxes ($99) will be the driver.   An TV with a built in AppleTV unit (bluetooth/WifI/infrared), would be less than $100 delta to construct. The issue would be would Apple build one at 40" that could be sold for <$600US?  Dunno.  But if you know you're getting .30 on the dollar for the next 8 years for say $10/week. (12/month...1000 over 8 years), then you can build it on the same financial rationalle  as the Kindle.

I don't think any TV alliance can compete with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualie 

 

 

In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.

Do you seriously think Apple is going to bring you daytime tv drama, talk shows, local news, real time sports, emergency alert messages, stock market data, etc. etc.

No. Apple brings you reruns, that's it.

Smart TV = Watching what you want, when you want, where you want on what you want to watch it on. No arcane and outdated restrictions and rules keeping you from doing that. When that day comes then everyone who has Internet will have Smart TV. Apple does not need to reinvent any hardware.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips 


This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!

 

Not really, today I have Apple TV maybe in the future I will have an Apple TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotoformat 

 a DSLR with a useful range of lenses appealing to the advanced amateur / semi-pro user.

 

Apple is unlikely to come out with a new product line unless they can target pretty much everybody as a potential buyer.  I suspect that there are not enough amateur/semi-pro users to justify that as a new product line.  Not only that, but the market is well served now by Nikon and Canon.  Apple is only going to enter a new market with something new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.

If you're looking at Hardware and interface... you're looking at the wrong thing.

It all boils down to linking

- Local/Live Content

- ITMS for vid content (to deliver 'network' and 'national/international live' content) 

- and a cloud based media collection (nTier DVR).

The TV isn't the issue... the menu isn't the issue.  It's the content delivery system coupled with the 'deals' to make it 'one source', and the User experience to set up 'MyTV'

iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod or iTunes... it succeeded because of the content deals.

Samsung and Panasonic and LG and Sony aren't doing that.