or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box - Page 2

post #41 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

That would be a complete fail IMO.  

 

Loewe TV sets are a classic example of what people *think* Apple design is all about while actually being almost the *opposite* of what Apple design is really all about.  Aside from the smooth lines and sexy materials there is absolutely nothing a Loewe TV does or is that is any different from any other TV.  An Apple branded TV would instead (hopefully) re-define the category like all their other products.  Despite the smooth looks of their products, Apple is about design, not just sexy materials and cool looking photography.  

 

At the very least, I would hope that Apple goes beyond this crappy 1980's idea that to get decent sound quality you have to have a separate amplifier, 5 speakers cluttering up your living room and all the associated tangle of wires leading from each to each.  Any audio engineer could tell you that it's not true at all that this kind of gear is necessary to get good quality sound.  They do it that way because it means you have to buy more crap.  It's fins on Cadillacs all over again.

 

If they don't do at least that, then (like the Loewe products) you can bet it's just going to be "just another TV" with basically zero innovation.  All this stuff about Siri being the main innovation, or some kind of f*cked up idea that we will be using our iPads as the remote and that will be the main innovation is just nonsense.  That's not innovation at all, that's just replacing a working product with a half-baked, not-quite-functional one.  

 

IMO the simplest answer to the "problem" of bringing TV into the modern era was thought of many years ago although it was so far ahead of it's time it never really caught on.  Podcasts.  

Obviously they would have to use iOS software on the Apple version of the TV but the but the physical Loewe designs are nice.   Loewe designs are right in line with existing Apple product designs.  The Loewe audio designs don't look shabby  either.

 

http://www.loewe.tv/int  

 

 

 

 

Time will tell.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 12/7/12 at 10:41am
post #42 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

What percentage of the current 6.1Billion people on earth use digiboxes, how many know how to DVR with them, do   I'm not saying it's hard, I'm saying most people haven't invested in the tech, or they hate the 2 remote problem (or programming the universal remote).  It's not confusion, it's 'how much easier must it be for me to pay Apple to do it for me?' (See Tablet computing.)

I'm just saying Apple is trying to get out of the 'device in the middle.'   Why iCloud vs a smart TimeCapsule that serves your files all over the internet... because that's complex and hard.   Apple wants no more than 3 devices between you and your content:  The Cloud... your iOS device, and either your computer or your AppleTV.  All tactile, and quantifiable (well, the cloud may not be... but that's the source, and it's ITMS). The DigiBox (and I really wanted Apple to build a component home server of mac Mini's that did file service, backup, compute service, and to your point, content caching and management), just doesn't fit their model.

1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.

2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.

3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.

4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.

5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?

6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, B) expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.

7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.

"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 #43 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Pros: Apple's TV would be simpler than most set-top boxes and their ridiculously busy remotes.
Cons: You'll want to buy a new TV very year, once the upgrade treadmill begins.

TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less.  For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years.  It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.

 

What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES.  They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.

post #44 of 191
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post
He told you why - because they will also offer a box.

 

Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.

 

Apparently that was unclear.

 

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
2 remotes.

 

One remote.

 

And I don't think an Apple TV will be $2000 dollars.  My guess is $499/699/999  (37 45 50 inch diags).

A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. 😲

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 #45 of 191
All this talk about margins....couldn't the see thing be said about other products, like computers? Yet Apple is #1 in the US in both desktop and laptop sales and making decent margins on their products. I see Apple offering a TV for those who are in the market for it, and some sort of $100-$200 box for people who don't need a new TV.
post #46 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


This is where I think Apple has the best chance of making an impact. If they can get some major telecoms to agree to rent their Apple made digiboxes they can offer a much better solution than Motorola, Scientific Atlantic, TiVo, or any other company can offer. They can get a high price for their box (cable companies pay a lot for them) and yet it will be an attractive option that customers can rent from their cable company.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/7/3739546/google-motorola-cable-box-auction-wsj

 

Kind of ironic isn't it?

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #47 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less.  For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years.  It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.

 

I would love to meet these people that would toss their perfectly working HD TV every 3 years....(no one)

 

 

 

Quote:
 
What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES.  They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.

 

You think people really care about any of that? New LED TVs are already low power, excellent color and paper thin. The world isn't moving beyond 1080p anytime soon. Most HD broadcasts are still 720p only. It'll be a long time before we get to 4k, not to mention one movie is north of about 500GB in size. Uncompressed is about 3TB.What is Apple going to do? Stream that?! Sure you may see proof of concept, but...mainstream? No.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #48 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?

There is nothing bad about it. It makes perfect logical sense. I just don't think Apple wants you to be looking at someone else's kit. That is why they make the iMac. They also make the Mini - and there it is - the aTV and the Apple Television. The latter will have all the bells and whistles. Also, as I have said repeatedly, entering the living room with a bang is Apple's style and noting signals that better than the very centrepiece most people spend hours looking at. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, B) expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
 

Apple will have to allow you to connect a cable-box but a prerequisite of the Apple Television launch is a package that can do without. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the main networks will work in tandem with Apple on launch to bring their content directly through the new device (I imagine this will be through IP). Then one by one the others will follow. (It will be limited at first and Apple will be slated for it). The other USP(s) will be how Apple integrates the whole experience with iCoud etc.

post #49 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.

 

Apparently that was unclear.

 

 

 

One remote.

 

 

A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. 😲

I transposed the one/two

 

And the day before the iPad was announced, the same would have been said:  $499 for a tablet computer? From APPLE?

Note a 37" TV set now is less that $400.   Assuming the competitors are making 20% margin without Apple's SupplyChain tightness, $499 would likely be 30-40% profit margin.   It's a reasonable number.

 

but we are violently in agreement.

post #50 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, B) expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.

1.  There are currently about 1.5 BILLION TV sets worldwide.  China has over 400 Mil, US has about 200 Mil, etc. etc.

2.  There are about 237 to 250 Million TVs (all types) sold each year.

3.  Apple typically goes after the sweetspot, which for TVs would be between 40 and 65 (maybe 70 inch). The sweetspot has been steadily going from up about 5 inches per year or two, so the sweetspot is around 50 or 55 inch.

 

Apple could either replace these cable boxes, or just have the TV include DVR, internet access, etc. and just have it connect to the cable/satellite box and just control the thing through an iDevice and route audio through 802.11 ac, which is going to start becoming popular once they get the 802.11ac spec ironed out next year.

post #51 of 191

I think TV sales have been falling because Apple, without doing anything, is building up a HUGE pent up demand as this topic is discussed.  I'm actually holding off a purchase of a new TV because of this.  Look at how many owners of iPads, iPhones would drop money on a really nice Apple HDTV within 6 months?  A TON, and I think everyone knows it and is just trying to figure out when the button is going get pressed.

 

People with Macs, iPhones, iPads would line up for weeks to get their hands on one and they could EASILY sell them if they had the right set of features, price, etc.

 

Some houses have 4 and 5 TVs.  I think the average household has 2.8 TVs for homes that have TVs.

 

all of this is logical progression, it's just a matter of what features, what cost, and when.

 

Home theater systems are getting AirPlay implemented, so they would be ready for accepting the Audio signal from a TV set.

post #52 of 191
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
1.  There are currently about 1.5 BILLION TV sets worldwide.  China has over 400 Mil, US has about 200 Mil, etc. etc.

2.  There are about 237 to 250 Million TVs (all types) sold each year.

 

Why not sell a high-margin stocking stuffer that nearly every established TV can use rather than having 1-5% YEARLY of a no-margin market?

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 #53 of 191
Full Apple TV Will not have the same form factor current tv's have.

IT Will be totally different.

IT Will be Like today s box but with a high quality beamer for a relatively low price and a screen which You can fold, put upright or hang on the ceiling.

The problem with the current generation of tv's is that they're Huge, not scalable, immobile and worst of All they look Like ugly depressing black rectangles when turned off.

IT is going to be revolutionary.
Edited by Doxxic - 12/7/12 at 10:54am
post #54 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Apple could either replace these cable boxes, or just have the TV include DVR, internet access, etc. and just have it connect to the cable/satellite box and just control the thing through an iDevice and route audio through 802.11 ac, which is going to start becoming popular once they get the 802.11ac spec ironed out next year.

They could offer both an HDTV and digibox solution. The HDTV could be in the sweet spot you mention with FaceTime, a high quality panel and perhaps some other features (like Siri) but the digibox solution could be something to gain wide adoption by havng those with less disposable income, those who are not ready replace their HEC HDTV at this point in time, and those with plenty of smaller TVs to get access to their UI and UX.

I don't expect 802.111ac to necessarily wait for a fully complete spec. They haven't waited that long in the past (although 802.11n was so problematic that there were extenuating circumstances). I do think that no Apple product will get 802.11ac unless they update their routers to support it. If I were to guess I'd say that they updated Mac Pro and routers will get this update within the first 4 months of 2013.

"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 #55 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by currentinterest View Post

There is no reason Apple cannot do both. A great TV and linking boxes seems logical to me, I would by the TV and four boxes.
Actually this sounds exactly like something Apple would do.

This forces early adopters to buy an Apple TV Screen as their primarily TV, and then via firmware make the ATV boxes dependent on the server inside the TV Screen. It's only available in the 40"-60" range as its intended to be your primary TV. So Apple guarantees you're looking at an Apple logo so you don't forget exactly who solved the nightmare that is current TV.

People will buy an Apple TV for the same reason they buy an iPhone, iPod and iPad ... It looks great and works flawlessly, right out of the box. I don't know anybody who doesn't complain about their TV setup. Whether Apple manages a 100% revolutionary solution, or only an iCloud kind of incremental improvement over time situation, people are going to perceive it as a major step forward over anything anybody else has offered,

Eventually, once Apple has established itself as a TV maker in order to sustain itself, they will most likely bring the software solution to the box by itself in the same way they introduced the iPad mini and other lower cost products to the masses.
post #56 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
 

The point is that its not the people who have figured out the digibox that are Apple's customers... it's those who haven't bought box yet because it's too complicated, or didn't meet their needs.  

 

 

 

Quote:
2) I'd say there are enough dissatisfied people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
 

Add that word, and I agree. 

d

 

Quote:
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.

Agreed.  but mobility of display (I watch a show for 10 minute on my ipad on the way home on the bus, then switching to one TV in the living room for 20 minutes, while relaxing, then 30 minutes in the den, without losing context), is what I see Apple going to... your iDevice is your bookmark.   I really do think the TV set is a shared device.   All those TV sets in bedrooms, kitchens, offices... will be eliminated.   But the 'navigation' will drive through the iDevice.   Apple's Usage model.

 

 

Quote:
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?

I'm not saying you replace every tv in the house... the AppleTV box still exists for those where you want to use a TV, but for the most part, most of those TVs are replace with the iPad.

 

 

Quote:
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, B) expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
 
 

I disagree on A) Apple will sell 'the' TV set in the house of the future.  3 sizes (small/med/large all larger than their largest Cinema display), LED only.  In the future there will be only 1 or 2 TV sets in a house, and one Big One for shared big experience viewing, and that's got a 10 year life span   My futurist guess is that Synced HUDs will replace TVs (why do we both need to watch the same screen).

 

As for multiple version in multiple sizes, shapes, colors, price point: Case in point.  iPhone.  

 

B) See Netflix/Disney.   Bypasses Cable/Satellite.   This is happening.   If Torrents are the same as Napster, Someone will realize that average consumer will pay $3 to watch a months worth of Scandal. 

 

Again Case in Point:  Are you using ATT email on your iPhone?  Apple bypassed all those services from the Carriers.

 

C) I expect just like the wireless space, the cable space will start to charge a huge sum for bandwidth, and the cable channels will come for free.    Satellites will become a huge CDN.

post #57 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

The set-top box idea is dead. Not going to happen.

They just fall right off of modern TVs.

This is also an issue for wall mounted TVs which are getting more popular. Where do people put the cable box for those installations? 'Set top' or below set are both problematic. Cable cards didn't really catch on but Apple's no visible wires design philosophy needs to be accounted for in a clean design. 

 

If Apple does partner with cable companies in a cable/Internet hybrid box it will be accompanied with data plans and data caps.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #58 of 191
I just hope they keep producing/supporting the current Apple TV for those who utilize them for home theater projection equipment. I haven't owned a television set in years, and I don't want a big black rectangle occupying space when not in use.
post #59 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackfrog View Post

Dear Appl Insider. Have you TRIED entering comments from an iPhone?
It's ghastly.

And an iPad too.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #60 of 191
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post
And an iPad too.

 

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Did you switch to the mobile site?

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 #61 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why not sell a high-margin stocking stuffer that nearly every established TV can use rather than having 1-5% YEARLY of a no-margin market?
Why can't they do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
post #62 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Actually this sounds exactly like something Apple would do.
This forces early adopters to buy an Apple TV Screen as their primarily TV, and then via firmware make the ATV boxes dependent on the server inside the TV Screen. It's only available in the 40"-60" range as its intended to be your primary TV. So Apple guarantees you're looking at an Apple logo so you don't forget exactly who solved the nightmare that is current TV.
People will buy an Apple TV for the same reason they buy an iPhone, iPod and iPad ... It looks great and works flawlessly, right out of the box. I don't know anybody who doesn't complain about their TV setup. Whether Apple manages a 100% revolutionary solution, or only an iCloud kind of incremental improvement over time situation, people are going to perceive it as a major step forward over anything anybody else has offered,
Eventually, once Apple has established itself as a TV maker in order to sustain itself, they will most likely bring the software solution to the box by itself in the same way they introduced the iPad mini and other lower cost products to the masses.
Yep I could see this happening. Lets just say I think Apple designers are working on more than a new MacPro, and its probably not silly glasses either.
post #63 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

The only way that Apple is coming out with an actual "TV set" (and by the way, they're not), is if it is simply the next iteration (or replacement) of the iMac.
just curious how you know what Apple is or isn't going to do?

Apple has to make money. There is no money to be made in Apple airfreighting, marketing, and then customer shipping a 55" monitor (it would just be a Samsung or LG panel anyway) with just a couple little Apple chips inside of it. Put the chips inside of a tiny little box (hmm, what's that called?), Sell half a trillion of them. And / or maybe even put those chips into the All New Re-envisioned iMac (iMacTV?). The money here will be in user interface and content. Not getting into the television set business against Sony Samsung LG Panasonic Vizio Westinghouse Toshiba etc etc etc. There just is no money for them to make in selling and shipping gigantic LCD screens. I mean really; If I have a 65" Sony, is Apple really going to tell me "No, you can't have "iTV" on that 65" Sony. Put it in the garage or sell it and buy a 42"-55" Apple brand television set, and THEN you can have "iTV". I really don't think so. Makes no sense. And would lose.

edit: And most importantly, it's just unnecessary. They just don't need to make giant screen TVs in order to totally revolutionize TV. The two are not tied together.

post #64 of 191
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Why can't they do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?

 

Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.

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 #65 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonshf View Post

In my view, the main point of a "whole" TV would be to be able to offer a simple user interface with a small and simple remote instead of the multiple remotes and configurations that people are still tolerating.
I imagine turning on said TV and being presented with an interface something like the current AppleTV box provides. That would be the "main" interface as opposed to the current tv interfaces where you start with the tv remote, chose your input channel, switch to respective remote and continue. Apple's content would now be at the forefront instead of behind the usual TV functions.
Ideally Apple would provide within that new interface a bunch of content but they don't need to start with a full package. Within that new slick interface and simple remote they can have submenu's that connect you to your regular set-top box or whatever else. Again, the difference is those things are in the backseat and with time they will just fade away.
Lastly, I don't see why Siri would be so important in all of this.

If I had to disrupt this, it would be like this. It goes in-between the Cable/Satellite company box/connection and your TV. It uses HDMI for the connection to TV. It allows multiple channel DVR (not this silly and artificial cap of 2 channels). It has AirPlay built right in, and it has Siri. To me, Siri is the big thing here. For instance here is a plausible scenario:

Wife: Let's watch "Grey's Anatomy" right now.
Me: Siri: record "Jeopardy" and change channel to watch "Grey's Anatomy".
Siri: I will record "Jeopardy" for you. Would you like to watch in standard or high definition?
Wife: High Definition.
Siri: Changing channel to ABC HD.
….
Me: Siri, how are the Phoenix Suns doing?
Siri: (with a small notification bar at the top) The Phoenix Suns are leading in the 3rd quarter, 77 to 69.
….
(After watching a commercial for an upcoming movie)
Me: Siri: buy two tickets for that movie for Friday night.
Siri: What time would you like to watch "Life of Pi"?
Wife: Sometime after 6PM.
Siri: Ok, I have purchased for you two tickets for "Life of Pi" at the AMC Arrowhead at 6:20 PM. [Assuming AMC Arrowhead is the closest one to me].

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #66 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why not sell a high-margin stocking stuffer that nearly every established TV can use rather than having 1-5% YEARLY of a no-margin market?
Since when has Apple ever entered a no-margin market and failed to get their margins? The iPad mini seems to be doing just fine. And they don't really seem to care about market share in general.

The way I see it, there's a huge Apple fan-boi market that has to have every new thing Apple makes, regardless of price. That's enough right there for a massive product launch, and grass-roots marketing campaign for a truly great new product.

And you said it yourself, it's about content. Maybe Apple entering the TV market is exactly what that industry needs to get consumers back into the mindset of paying a premium for a flat screen TV. With consumers perceiving Apple products as having a higher value, and Apple initially makes the Apple TV "system" the only way to expand their Apple ecosystem into the living room, and take advantage of Apple's presumably revolutionary interface, and more importantly media content deals, the Apple TV may do exactly that.

But again, as you have said, there will be no significant entry into TV of any kind without a content solution. Cooks statements indicate they have made some progress on that front.

In the end, what if the Apple TV set fails? What has Apple lost really? There's no doubt it will be a fantastic product, and i'ts the software and content that counts anyway. The TV set itself gives Apple a massive media marketing campaign and a flagship product with which to showcase the iOS-based TV ecosystem (I mean can you imagine Cook sitting in front of a 60" Samsung running ATV through its paces?). It will get glowing press reviews and make people dream of sitting in front of one effortlessly accessing their favorite media content. It will most likely get people to switch to Apple for it, thus building their content user base. Ultimately if Apple can't sell enough sets to drive its manufacture of them, they will announce that they are now making the same interface available in a streamlined box for use with any TV thus encouraging a mass defection from other TV solutions to Apple after the high profile success of its Apple TV. Thereafter, if they ultimately discontinue the set due to poor sales, nobody will notice or care.
Edited by Mac_128 - 12/7/12 at 11:41am
post #67 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Why stick with a set-top box when even in *this* segment, Apple can design and release a complete turn-key solution - hardware AND software?

Apple software running on someone else's non-Apple branded and non-Apple designed hardware makes no sense as a long-term strategy. It is not a solution. Treat the TV like any other device to be re-imagined. The "computer" itself, MP3 players, phones, tablets, and now TVs. Same deal. Just another device to re-make. 

How can a TV be re-imagined if it absolutely needs to be built more or less what's already exist? Can't make a new form factor like the iPhone, can't make a sleek sexy redesign of tablets like the iPad and cannot take time getting content deals with the industry like with the iPod.
"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 #68 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?

Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.

They do sell their MacBook lines and iMac alongside the Mac mini and Mac Pro. That would be an equivalent to an Apple HDTV and Apple TV where the later in each can be connected to non-Apple monitors. For the Mac mini it's an option for those that want to spend less to get a Mac and for the Mac Pro it's for those that have unique monitor needs that Apple can't supply with their single monitor solution.

"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 #69 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Did you switch to the mobile site?

This is why AI should create an articles regarding any major site changes. One, it lets people know about it. Two, it keeps the articles more on topic if there is a proper thread in which to have the discussion.

"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 #70 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

I just hope they keep producing/supporting the current Apple TV for those who utilize them for home theater projection equipment. I haven't owned a television set in years, and I don't want a big black rectangle occupying space when not in use.

Those are doing well enough that I am not fearful Apple will try to collapse a rumored future TV product and the current set top box into a single product. Apple is not run by stupid people. These products are at two completely different price points and address different and non-overlapping market needs. Apple will also sell a buttload more set top boxes than a TV, which strategically puts the Apple user experience into more homes than if they simply tried to replace the $99 box with a full price Apple television. Think of it as a "gateway drug" for people who aren't ready (or perhaps by choice unwilling) to buy Apple's rumored future TV.

Or you could simply do the math: add up all the projected revenues from these different product lines and (presumably iTunes content sales) and see where the profits land. I don't have hard numbers, but my intuitive feel is that Apple is better off keeping a set top box while also selling an integrated TV. Hopefully it will be much more than just a TV with the set top box built in.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #71 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Since when has Apple ever entered a no-margin market and failed to get their margins? The iPad mini seems to be doing just fine. And they don't really seem to care about market share in general.
The way I see it, there's a huge Apple fan-boi market that has to have every new thing Apple makes, regardless of price. That's enough right there for a massive product launch, and grass-roots marketing campaign for a truly great new product.
And you said it yourself, it's about content. Maybe Apple entering the TV market is exactly what that industry needs to get consumers back into the mindset of paying a premium for a flat screen TV. With consumers perceiving Apple products as having a higher value, and Apple initially makes the Apple TV "system" the only way to expand their Apple ecosystem into the living room, and take advantage of Apple's presumably revolutionary interface, and more importantly media content deals, the Apple TV may do exactly that.
But again, as you have said, there will be no significant entry into TV of any kind without a content solution. Cooks statements indicate they have made some progress on that front.
In the end, what if the Apple TV set fails? What has Apple lost really? There's no doubt it will be a fantastic product, and i'ts the software and content that counts anyway. The TV set itself gives Apple a massive media marketing campaign and a flagship product with which to showcase the iOS-based TV ecosystem (I mean can you imagine Cook sitting in front of a 60" Samsung running ATV through its paces?). It will get glowing press reviews and make people dream of sitting in front of one effortlessly accessing their favorite media content. It will most likely get people to switch to Apple for it, thus building their content user base. Ultimately if Apple can't sell enough sets to drive its manufacture of them, they will announce that they are now making the same interface available in a streamlined box for use with any TV thus encouraging a mass defection from other TV solutions to Apple after the high profile success of its Apple TV. Thereafter, if they ultimately discontinue the set due to poor sales, nobody will notice or care.

Because the iPad mini comes with the iOS ecosystem that many people are heavily invested in, and though it's more expensive than the competition its cheaper than the iPad. Not many people had smartphones before the iPhone and even less owned a tablet but everyone has at least one TV. It was easy for people to give up feature(less) phones for the iPhone. Don't see people dumping their $1000+ TV for a Apple branded TV.
Edited by dasanman69 - 12/7/12 at 12:01pm
"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 #72 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

As for multiple version in multiple sizes, shapes, colors, price point: Case in point. iPhone.

You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.

The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.

"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 #73 of 191

Siri? LOL. It has been out over a year, is still in beta and has an incomplete feature set on the device is was rolled out on. If Apple is going to port it to a television they should probably fix it and release a final version for the iPhone first.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #74 of 191
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
This is why AI should create an articles regarding any major site changes. One, it lets people know about it. Two, it keeps the articles more on topic if there is a proper thread in which to have the discussion.

 

Oh, they did. It just wasn't… out yet… then… So people ignored it. 1tongue.gif

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 #75 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

Siri? LOL. It has been out over a year, is still in beta and has an incomplete feature set on the device is was rolled out on. If Apple is going to port it to a television they should probably fix it and release a final version for the iPhone first.

-kpluck

in what way would removing the beta label off the iPhone mean it's ready for use with a TV? It's quite a different set of commands for a TV. I'd wager it's also considerably smaller. The system has to know basic controls for a TV, including knowing the commands for recording and finding a show. I guess it could have the reminders that will then post to your devices via iCloud and iTunes playback would be nice but I doubt the location, search and other Siri features would be utilized out of the gate, if ever, for a TV.

"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 #76 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.

I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.
"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 #77 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.

I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.
"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 #78 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.

Huh?

"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 #79 of 191
Boy that Siri implementation expectation is persistent.
Worst possible idea... Shrug..
post #80 of 191
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Huh?

 

Ah, I believe the first sentence is a reference to your statement regarding "the way we watch television". It's obviously just a misinterpretation of your meaning.

 

I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was SHV. I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was autostereoscopic 3D (that's either/or, not and/or; I realize both will be physically and financially impossible for about 15 more years). But neither of these will happen.

 

That leaves us with whatever the TV equivalent of an H-IPS panel is called… in a pretty, aluminum box. Big whoop.

 

I subscribe to the idea of an "Apple Television" having little to no connectivity. But since we haven't even heard the merest whisper of content deals leveraged, that's not gonna happen.

 

Hypothetical: "Apple Television" is released. One cable: power. How do you get content? iTunes Store. But… that's it. So it's a 10-15x$ Apple TV (existing product) that… can't be expanded in any way.

 

Or, picture this: a la carte subscribable shows (not even entire channels, shows), streamed live alongside their old-timey broadcast equivalents. News channels that are 1:1 with broadcast, live sports, etc. Purchase shows right after they've aired and download them to your machine. Purchase individual live sports events. And then the entire iTunes Store backing that up.

 

Video iAds instead of the standard, static broadcast ads during commercial breaks. Make television advertising actually desirable to customers by capitalizing on interactivity and whatnot. Does anyone not hit mute when the ads come up? 

 

That's good for either a TV or an Apple TV, but since the content would be the same on both, I see a grand many more going for the $99 option.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 12/7/12 at 12:53pm

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box