I don't get it. You can get a er tv know for $1000. Why does Apple have to charge double of what eveyone else is selling. I've seen the newest Samsung 46 at 240hz for $1100 at Fry's and it was awesome. And also has Ethernet connections. Samsung have one of the best pictures IMHO.
Screen size is not a cookie cutter offering. I HAVE to have a 37" monitor because of the size of my custom enclosure (and the fact that the wife won't allow anything bigger.)
40" is still considered pretty small for anyone who seriously wants a movie experience, and its not like people are going to set up a second entertainment room just for the thrill of having an Apple branded TV.
The ultimate extension of this is that Apple would have to offer an entire line of TV sizes, and I just don't see that happening.
Plus, we're no longer in a time where a self contained TV makes any sense. You have components (including cable box/DVR, AppleTV, DVD... name your mix/match) and a monitor. They all age out technologically at different rates, and I'll be damned if I'm going to assure that I have to upgrade the whole lot just because one element (i.e. the monitor) becomes broken or obsolete.
$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.
There is a lot of things under cutting iTMS. regular free TV, Hulu, youtube, windows media center etc... hell even Tivo might be cheaper in the long run.
Apple doesn't need to put an end to anything in order for iTMS to survive or succeed.
They would undoubtedly buy their panels from Samsung and replace much of the Samsung electronics with their own.
Great. So you'd be getting an $800 television for $2,000? Where do I sign up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mex4eric
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.
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.
I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.
TVs are updated in different cycles than the perhipeals they're usually connected to. TVs with optical drives have never been widely popular.
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.
Outside of size, there are just too many styles and types to fit too many home settings.
The margins on TVs are typically thin.
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.
You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... Whilst I'm sure set-up boxes are changed more often than TVs typically that won't be how Apple see's people using iTV.
Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris
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.
Imagine you're in Dec 2006. Now insert the words "mobile phones" in place of "TV sets".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.
Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.
Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.
Click wheels are dying breed. The bottom of the remote could have a touch area for flicking up down left and right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes
Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.
The viewing angle on LED (which is actually LCD) is said to be 178ª, but the reality is it distorts. Plasma is far superior for the modern living room in terms of real world use. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple using LCD and arguing it's batter through aggressive marketing. I know thing, if the TV panel itself isn't better than my Kuro I won't be buying it regardless of the extra stuff it does.
I have an Apple TV and love it...it was worth the price of admission just because it's the best way to present photos with no-commercial internet radio!
Used to rent a lot of movies thru ATV, but now with a RedBox on my running route and an iPhone App (Re. Availability and reservations.), I can rent 5 movies from RedBox for the price of one from iTunes.
Sorry Apple...the Movie & TV Industries don't want to play ball!
They would like to have more and more of their 'products' pirated rather than give into the proven Apple model (Think Music here).
Best
Ps. Redbox is going to have a digital service very soon...and it will be way cheap! Blockbuster and Netflix are screwed because there is no bottom!
I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.
I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.
Of course, one thing that is truly not available on-line is NFL football and viewers will still need broadcast TV to receive this (and many other sports). And sports clearly sell a lot of TVs.
Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.
you want cheap satalite? Just buy the equipment outright and add it to a friends account. No extra charge/mo for them and free tv for you (besides the cost of equipment).
I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.
Oh so it's Prince taking his usual journalistic leaps of faith.
Of course, one thing that is truly not available on-line is NFL football and viewers will still need broadcast TV to receive this (and many other sports). And sports clearly sell a lot of TVs.
Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.
Yep, the only reason and I mean only reason, I pay $100/mo for cable HDTV is for Formula One. If I could get it somehow somewhere else, I would drop cable in a heartbeat!
You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... [...] Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.
1) People typically buy a completely new computer system, not just a component, they don't do this with TVs which have a much longer update cycle than PCs.
2) What user experience are they failing to address by not supplying the home entertainment monitor? We're talking about a system using a 10-foot user interface that works great for DVRs, cableboxes, sat receivers, optical drives, and media extenders. There is just no argument to say Apple would be more successful by making 3 or 4 TVs that are to fit everyone's needs.
I can't see Apple selling their own TVs. However, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that they could allow manufacturers to embed AppleTV technology into their sets while continuing to produce standalone boxes for those who prefer to go that route.
Comments
Where's Ireland?
I don't get it. You can get a er tv know for $1000. Why does Apple have to charge double of what eveyone else is selling. I've seen the newest Samsung 46 at 240hz for $1100 at Fry's and it was awesome. And also has Ethernet connections. Samsung have one of the best pictures IMHO.
40" is still considered pretty small for anyone who seriously wants a movie experience, and its not like people are going to set up a second entertainment room just for the thrill of having an Apple branded TV.
The ultimate extension of this is that Apple would have to offer an entire line of TV sizes, and I just don't see that happening.
Plus, we're no longer in a time where a self contained TV makes any sense. You have components (including cable box/DVR, AppleTV, DVD... name your mix/match) and a monitor. They all age out technologically at different rates, and I'll be damned if I'm going to assure that I have to upgrade the whole lot just because one element (i.e. the monitor) becomes broken or obsolete.
Nope, don't buy it.
Where's Ireland?
$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.
There is a lot of things under cutting iTMS. regular free TV, Hulu, youtube, windows media center etc... hell even Tivo might be cheaper in the long run.
Apple doesn't need to put an end to anything in order for iTMS to survive or succeed.
They would undoubtedly buy their panels from Samsung and replace much of the Samsung electronics with their own.
Great. So you'd be getting an $800 television for $2,000? Where do I sign up!
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.
This won't happen in 20-40 years, let alone 2-4.
I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.
Apple isn't catering to the crowd that is picking up $499 bargains at Wal-Mart.
Besides the iPad that's true.
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.
I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.
I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.
Neither am I.
I don't see it.
You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... Whilst I'm sure set-up boxes are changed more often than TVs typically that won't be how Apple see's people using iTV.
Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.
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.
Imagine you're in Dec 2006. Now insert the words "mobile phones" in place of "TV sets".
Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.
I hope they choose plasma over LCD, but I'm not holding my breath.
Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.
I don't see an advantage worth the 100% to 130% premium on a 'normal' HDTV + additional monthly recurring charge.
Best they put the damn click wheel on the remote by the time this happens. The Apple Remote is gagging for a quicker way to scroll through larger libraries.
Click wheels are dying breed. The bottom of the remote could have a touch area for flicking up down left and right.
Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.
The viewing angle on LED (which is actually LCD) is said to be 178ª, but the reality is it distorts. Plasma is far superior for the modern living room in terms of real world use. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple using LCD and arguing it's batter through aggressive marketing. I know thing, if the TV panel itself isn't better than my Kuro I won't be buying it regardless of the extra stuff it does.
Used to rent a lot of movies thru ATV, but now with a RedBox on my running route and an iPhone App (Re. Availability and reservations.), I can rent 5 movies from RedBox for the price of one from iTunes.
Sorry Apple...the Movie & TV Industries don't want to play ball!
They would like to have more and more of their 'products' pirated rather than give into the proven Apple model (Think Music here).
Best
Ps. Redbox is going to have a digital service very soon...and it will be way cheap! Blockbuster and Netflix are screwed because there is no bottom!
I agree totally. I don't think if Apple did this, even today that it would cost $2,000. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like $1,299 at the low end. Then we're talking two years time, a lot can happen in 2 years. Prices could changed considerably. Premium is one thing, ludicrous is another.
I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.
Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.
Equipment cost: Dish Network DVR $300 (ebay)____Dish Network Dish 1000 $65 (Ebay)
All you need is a good friend
I'd like to see Munster's original research report. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as specific on the pricing as has been reported. The language I've seen quoted refers to a "competitively priced" product. I think he's right about this being a potentially killer product for Apple, though I wonder where the timeframe comes from.
Oh so it's Prince taking his usual journalistic leaps of faith.
Of course, one thing that is truly not available on-line is NFL football and viewers will still need broadcast TV to receive this (and many other sports). And sports clearly sell a lot of TVs.
Separately, why is the mac mini considered to be so complicated to hook up to a TV? The only conveniences it seems to miss are: (i) no ability to buy media with the remote and (ii) no simple way to control without firing up the TV.
Yep, the only reason and I mean only reason, I pay $100/mo for cable HDTV is for Formula One. If I could get it somehow somewhere else, I would drop cable in a heartbeat!
You could use the same update cycle argument with the iMac... [...] Apple's desire to control the whole user experience when it comes to provision of content means that the screen that consumers actually watch really must be in their sights at some stage.
1) People typically buy a completely new computer system, not just a component, they don't do this with TVs which have a much longer update cycle than PCs.
2) What user experience are they failing to address by not supplying the home entertainment monitor? We're talking about a system using a 10-foot user interface that works great for DVRs, cableboxes, sat receivers, optical drives, and media extenders. There is just no argument to say Apple would be more successful by making 3 or 4 TVs that are to fit everyone's needs.