Apple positioned to introduce connected HDTV within 2-4 years



  • Reply 21 of 136
    I like it! What size? 3D? 1080p?

    And in Canada or UK or Mexico can Apple organize the content rights for those countries and argue with the local content regulators? And France, and ... and
  • Reply 22 of 136
    cougarcougar Posts: 55member
    Gene Munster says some pretty silly things, but this has got to be one of the silliest.
  • Reply 23 of 136
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    Originally Posted by Eastman View Post

    On top they think people will pay what ? 60-90 a Month for a TV Service ? Where do they live ?

    Not here thats for sure ..

    Here Customers expect DSL / Landline Fone Service with a Landline to Landline Flatrate and TV for something that costs 60 or more ..

    People here easily pays over $100 for cable TV. I am not sure why either.
  • Reply 24 of 136
    Apple can make a TV if they want but I would not want the equivalent of all those other components integrated in a TV.

    How about a standalone modular system with components such as a "System Integrator" with 4-5 each of Composite, Component and HDMI connectors along with a variety of audio inputs as well to connect to your existing hardware. Maybe several different models of this unit that add more connectors. Add to that a modular unit with a variety of outputs, there could be several different sizes of these units as well.

    Make these integrate with the Apple Airport Extreme or Time Capsule. Yeah if you're output is going to a really good AV receiver and surround system you don't need an AV Receiver but if you don't have one, maybe a small unit to output to a small 2.1 or 5.1 speaker system could be another module as well. Add DVD, BlueRay, NAS and other modules as needed. All stacking on top of each other with a modular backplace for connectivity.

    Let this all integrate with the Internet, iTunes and a bunch or other services and make it work by providing a better interface such as the iPhone, iPod Touch or iPAD be the universal remote somewhat like the Logitech Harmony universal remotes.

    Let someone like Sony or Samsung make the TV.
  • Reply 25 of 136
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,662member
    60" Diagonal at that price and I'm interested! Seriously though, I don't see Apple NOT offering the same features what ever they are with Apple TV to connect to any make of HD TV ... I have that now after all with my Sony 60" and Apple TV. Unless Apple's TV offers something very different what's the hook? Unless it's 3D maybe? (kidding).
  • Reply 26 of 136
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Originally Posted by Cougar View Post

    Gene Munster says some pretty silly things, but this has got to be one of the silliest.

    Indeed. What an idiot.
  • Reply 27 of 136
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

    Where's Ireland?

    It's that country near Great Britain. (Sorry, hard to resist.)

    This is a good market for Apple to enter, but it has to be amusing to see anyone claim know precisely how Apple will price a product that isn't even rumored to exist yet, and even if does, would not for another 2-4 years. Look at how much luck anyone had guessing the iPad's price, and that was when it was at least known to exist.
  • Reply 28 of 136
    You would have a hard time to get people to subscribe to that here ..

    Unless that would include a Full Sub to SKY TV .. (Sat Digital TV by Murdoch)
  • Reply 29 of 136
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    The smartest thing Apple could do is get iTunes streaming bundled into other manufactuers' televisions in the same way that Netflix Streaming, Amazon, VUDU, and Blockbuster are built into many HDTVs now. Let someone put in their iTunes username and password and stream purchased content from the iTunes store.
  • Reply 30 of 136
    Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

    it's doubtful Apple will be able to keep up with the Panasonics and Samsungs of the world in that regard. Anyone who would be willing to spend $2k on an Apple-branded 40" television because it has a $229 Apple TV stuck inside is a complete tool.

    They would undoubtedly buy their panels from Samsung and replace much of the Samsung electronics with their own. AppleTV++ and all content over the internet. No more cable. CableCos and Telcos will have to become good deliverers of internet and give up managing content.

    How is a 40" TV more difficult to warehouse and sell than a 27" iMac?
  • Reply 31 of 136
    replicantreplicant Posts: 121member
    Hello? Apple TV has yet to be a success.

    It is hard to imagine Apple offering a compelling product for the living room, especially a TV for that matter.

    Who will actually buy a new TV at a premium price just to have Apple on-demand services for the same price as cable?

    Apple will have to offer better hardware than Sony and also offer a better experience than PS3/Xbox/Nintendo. Possible but very unlikely.

    Furthermore, the movie/cable networks are afraid of giving Apple too much power after witnessing how Apple dominated the music biz. So even if Apple wants to be in the living room, I doubt they will get much support from the content providers.

    No, the Apple TV is a good start. Just improve on it. I for one, would love to be able to run apps and surf the web on it. Open it up to developers Apple !
  • Reply 32 of 136
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,662member
    Originally Posted by mex4eric View Post

    They would undoubtedly buy their panels from Samsung and replace much of the Samsung electronics with their own. AppleTV++ and all content over the internet. No more cable. CableCos and Telcos will have to become good deliverers of internet and give up managing content.

    How is a 40" TV more difficult to warehouse and sell than a 27" iMac?

    mmm to the second part of the question ... because it's not a Mac maybe? Just a guess.
  • Reply 33 of 136
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    the thing with 2-4 years is, nobody will remember these predictions.

    If true, they'll most certainly dig it up like they have some insight.

    If not, they will just pretend it never happened.
  • Reply 34 of 136
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

    Normally I would disregard anything Gene "Bullsh*t" Munster says, but he's pretty accurate here - Apple are good at re-defining established markets, and the TV market is approaching an inflection point where people will want their TV to do more.

    I'd buy a TV with Apple TV functionality and ease of use built in. I can't figure out any of the advanced features on my Samsung.

    I don't see it.
    1. TVs are updated in different cycles than the perhipeals they're usually connected to. TVs with optical drives have never been widely popular.

    2. There is no on-size-fits-all philosophy that will work with TVs. What if I want 20" version for the bacthroom, or 30" for bedroom, etc.

    3. Outside of size, there are just too many styles and types to fit too many home settings.

    4. The margins on TVs are typically thin.

    5. Apple will severely limit it's sales potential in this already difficult market by making a few models of TVs with AppleTV software built in. The best option seems to be an appliance that connects to any TV and/or a licensing deal with a company like LG for AppleTV add-on for their TVs, similar to HP's MediaSmart TVs.

  • Reply 35 of 136
    Originally Posted by Crimguy View Post

    All good, except that a 40" TV can be had for about $700, and will likely cost less in 2-4 years. And quality? Since when does your average consumer care about quality?

    And BTW while I don't care about this possibility, it would be nice to see what develops. I think Piper Jeffrey is just making things up though.

    You can buy a quality Panasonic plasma 42" for less than $600.

    And buy quality I mean reliable and superior picture.

    And buy superior picture I mean better motion resolution, response time (Micro vs Milli) color, and contrast. And buy better I mean $600 vs 1200 (plasma vs LCD) for about "equal" picture quality.

    Apple would be smart to do this. I've often thought. Why don't networks upload the daily content once and allow users to view it when they want to. Example: Let's say "2 & 1/2 Men" is on at 8 o'clock on Tuesday. Why not instead, at midnight Monday/Tuesday, they make their entire days worth of viewing available, minus live events. That way if you wanted to watch 2.5 men at 6am you just tune to CBS and select it. No need for DVRing. On demand daily episodes.
  • Reply 36 of 136
    myapplelovemyapplelove Posts: 1,515member
    Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

    Indeed. What an idiot.

    I too can't see how this moron keeps his job...
  • Reply 37 of 136
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    iTV ...
  • Reply 38 of 136
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

    There's no way Apple will ever enter a commodity market like TV sets. There are already so many different producers, models etc., it would be ridiculous. I don't care about Apple mindshare, quality or visibility, they'd be swamped.

    It makes much more sense if Apple actually made the TV a more powerful and flexible home theatre add-on. Something that plugs into ANY TV on the market from an el-cheapo Westinghouse to high-end Sony or a B&O, or a Loewe:

    Merge TV with a Mac mini and call it something Mac media or Mac theatre?

    Or introduce a new, high-end model TV running iOS?

    Or maybe something like an iPad with beefier specs, capable of supporting Full-HD output, capable of drive an entire home theatre system from your sofa with multi-touch.

    The Mac mini route is for the geek and doable now. I'd vote for some sort of iOS device replacing the current TV.

    This makes more sense to me than an Apple TV screen.

    I think the reason people want the all-in-one TV from Apple is that they already don't know how to hook up their cable box and program the remote let alone get Internet content on their TV. Non-tech people want easy above everything else. What we really need is a an integrated set top box that can easily switch between cable for local and network programming, HD antenna for free, uncompressed live sports, and internet media downloads. Geeks can do it now but the general population is clueless. It has to be easy or people won't buy it. And as mentioned above, I hate when they write you can get rid of your cable bill. You still need the Internet portion of the cable service. And you know that an Internet only service from the cable company is going to be rather pricey.
  • Reply 39 of 136
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    In 2-4 years, one will easily be able to purchase 50' + LCD/1080p TV sets for US 1000.00 or less, so unless Apple sees fit to incorporate 3D technology (and every other modern technology) into their effort, it'll probably be a non-starter with all but the Apple-faithful.

    Heck! I just purchased a Samsung 55' LED/3D TV with two sets of 3D glasses, internet/Netflix etc, capability, and a 3D BluRay player form best Buy this weekend for US 3300.00, which means the same package will be much less expensive in 2-4 years, so Apple had really best think this venture through (including the adoption of BD tech) before taking the plunge.
  • Reply 40 of 136
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

    $9 a month Netflix and a $99 Roku is the cheapest way to get unlimited use streaming movies and TV shows right to your HDTV.

    Anything not able to be streamed is available via DVD. Suck it up while you can, Jobs want's to put a end to Netflix really bad as it's undercutting iTMS.

    ...and at this Jobs/Apple will fail - quite resolutely if their Apple TV effort is any indication.
Sign In or Register to comment.