Apple positioned to introduce connected HDTV within 2-4 years



  • Reply 61 of 136
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Originally Posted by kdjohn3 View Post

    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.

    That makes the most sense to me, too.
  • Reply 62 of 136
    reliasonreliason Posts: 135member
    Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

    Imagine you're in Dec 2006. Now insert the words "mobile phones" in place of "TV sets".


    1.) Smart Phones were not a mature market.

    2.) Smart Phones were not a comodity product.

    3.) Smart Phones are not low margin.

    The equivelent thing to this would be a smart phone, that costs $750(with 2 year contract), plus the phone contract, plus the data contract, plus another 'content' contract costing the same as the phone+data contract. [extrapolating from a RIM smart phone priced at $299 in 2006 * 250%, a cable subscription, a highspeed internet connection and apples content subscription]

    This idea = stupid
  • Reply 63 of 136
    I pay over $100 a month for Cable here (NYC) and I still have to watch adverts every few minutes. Having a paid subscription without adverts has to be the way to go. With DVR's, the advertising revenue has to be dropping significantly, in the next few years I cannot see how the current model can continue. I refuse to watch adverts now and I am not alone!

    Paying Apple a monthly subscription for their TV content would be a great solution, the current pay per show is a little too much if you want to cancel the cable TV completely. TV shows with no adverts and rent/ buy movies when needed would be entertainment bliss!

    As for the Apple TV, putting an Mac Mini under your current tv gets you about the same thing, it works well for me anyway. Apple providing the TV itself maybe a step too far as it would be a small market with too many risks. Do people still buy DVD's/ Blue Ray? They are going the way of CD's of which I have not bought one for 5 years now.
  • Reply 64 of 136
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
  • Reply 65 of 136
    I would never buy one. I have my PC hooked up to my plasma TV and it allows all of the same functions (and then some) at a fraction of the cost.

    How much storage space would this thing have? How good a graphics card? What games could I actually play on it?

    I'm all for getting rid of the cable, but this is just silly. Might be good for grandma though...
  • Reply 66 of 136
    Is this an early April Fool's joke?

    $2000 is the same price as your choice of plasma TV plus a Mac Mini and an HDTV tuner with DVR software. The difference is that the Mini will run what you want it to. Given Apple's self-destructive obsession with closed systems, I wouldn't dare pay for such an expensive device. The Apple TV box is a failure because Apple locks out everything that would make it a great product - DVR software, Amazon VOD, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu, etc.
  • Reply 67 of 136
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

    Pretty sure the lower power LED display would be their preference - especially 2011 onwards.

    Agree. I just prefer the picture quality of plasma over LCD. But LCD has gotten much better and the difference isn't so great anymore on good quality LCD sets.
  • Reply 68 of 136
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    As cool as it would be to see an Apple HDTV, I seriously doubt it.

    The market is just too cut throat. The PC market is too but Apple has been in that market since the beginning so they have got a segement of their own.

    Just do not think they could pull it off in this market.

    And they got to get off the pot with Apple TV if they are even thinking about this.
  • Reply 69 of 136
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Originally Posted by kdjohn3 View Post

    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.

    It's a slight possibility, but the chances of this happening are razor thin.

    Apple uses content to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. It is far more likely for Apple to sell a set-top box (like AppleTV), rather than license the software (we all know how keen Apple is to do the latter), which is a completely different business model.

    As pointed out earlier, the buying cycle for TVs is considerably longer than computers or small consumer electronics.

    The hardware-software integration in Apple products is very tight. They would essentially give that up if they licensed AppleTV OS. What happens if a hardware partner specs out a underpowered TV that provides a lousy user experience of the Apple-branded AppleTV service or ships a confounding remote (like Sony's)? That makes Apple look bad.

    Giving up tight control doesn't sound particularly Apple-like.
  • Reply 70 of 136
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

    Oh so it's Prince taking his usual journalistic leaps of faith.

    The actual quote from Munster's investment note was, "We believe Apple is uniquely positioned to combine these elements at competitive prices ($2,000) for an Apple-branded TV.?

    In the way of the 'net, this been turned instantly into "Apple is expected to offer a $2,000 TV."

    The words are the same, only the meaning is different.
  • Reply 71 of 136
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Originally Posted by kevinmcmurtrie View Post

    Given Apple's self-destructive obsession with closed systems...

    AAPL closes at $228.30, and will be over $300 by end of year.

    Give this "Apple is doomed because they're not 'open'" crap a rest.

    The only ones who give a damned about 'open' is geeks and developers, who need to start realizing they serve customers, not themselves.
  • Reply 72 of 136
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Wouldn't Apple be able to make an iOS driven Apple TV insanely small? Not sure what bulk a big screen, HD capable CPU would add, but beyond that they already have a pretty robust operating system that can run on phone sized hardware.

    I'm just thinking in terms of licensing deals-- if Apple could reduce the Apple TV to a module the size of a couple of matchboxes, easily incorporated into existing chassises, and sell it to OEM TV manufacturers fro $100 or so, I would think that would be a tempting proposition.

    I agree it would be fairly unApple like to partner that way, but to me it would make much more sense than trying to make their own TVs. Unless they could make them price and quality competitive with existing premium sets, and keep them that way as pricing in the industry changes.

    I could see being tempted by a, say, $1000 40" LCD 1080p set (at current prices) with an improved Apple TV built in and some typical Apple cleverness brought to the menu screens and user interactions. Add in seamless, wireless integration with my laptop, phone and iPad and yeah, for sure.

    But much over $1300 for that rig and we're looking at Apple HiFi/Bose territory, where Apple hasn't been all that successful.
  • Reply 73 of 136
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

    A full fledged Apple LCD Television makes no sense to me. You end of witha very small slice of a high end TV market, competing for razor thin margins with companies that will have greater variety and much better distribution.

    Making a box - a better Apple TV makes a lot of sense. Let people pick whatever set they want and connect it to a better box leverages all the expertise Apple already has with none of the risk of the consumer television market.

    If Apple brings down the price of the Apple TV to under $99 or $150, and adds a few features, it would be a home run.

    Though in some sense it already is successful - based on estimates I read here, it has outsold all other similar devices combined (linksys, dlink, netgear, etc, etc)

    TV margins are very thin and the high end is crowded, but the equipment (iPhone, iPod, iPad) are just meant to facilitate the purchase of music, movies, books and such. That is why Sony bought the movie control the content. That, my friends, is the biggest obstacle that Apple faces moving forward.
  • Reply 74 of 136
    techstudtechstud Posts: 124member
    DIdn't I tell y'all- the SONY of the millennium.


    Where's my i5 13" MBP????
  • Reply 75 of 136
    techstudtechstud Posts: 124member
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

    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.

    If it's Apple expect $3,000 minimum and without an HDMI port!
  • Reply 76 of 136
    Ain't gonna happen. No Apple-branded TV. Market's too mature. Too many players.

    Hmm, brevity feels good.
  • Reply 77 of 136
    There are so many things wrong with this article I don't know where to start.

    For one, there's no way an Apple Television (I'm'a call it "iTV") would eliminate those devices... Unless iTunes had EVERY SINGLE TV show from EVERY SINGLE broadcaster, some will inevitably still require a cable package from Comcast or whomever... It won't replace any game console because it will not carry the titles that millions of people buy Wiis, XBoxes, and Playstations for. Having said that, you won't be able to eliminate your audio tuner as you'll still have multiple sources of input... not to mention that it's what makes surround sound possible at all, which is a necessity for anyone who wants a better-than-average home-entertainment system.

    Secondly, $2000????? In 2 to 4 years, $2000 better get me more than a measly 40-incher... I saw a really nice Samsung (had to be ~40") for $800-something at Target this week. I smell serious shenanigans in Gene's numbers...

    Third, there's nothing this "$2000" device can do that the existing AppleTV device can't be enabled to do, very easily. Even DVR capabilities would be a snap as long as it had a live TV throughput and an HDD that was worth something.

    I will readily admit that there's a lot of room to consolidate the functions of a TV, but Apple should strive to be the hub into which it all integrates - and combine with iTunes connectivity, and DVR functionality. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

    This device makes no sense.

  • Reply 78 of 136
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Another one falls for it.
  • Reply 79 of 136
    irelandireland Posts: 17,796member
    Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

    DIdn't I tell y'all- the SONY of the millennium.


    Where's my i5 13" MBP????

    It's better than the listening to a grumpy ass like you. Moan moan moan moan moan.
  • Reply 80 of 136
    irelandireland Posts: 17,796member
    Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

    If it's Apple expect $3,000 minimum and without an HDMI port!

    You're a ridicules human being. Not to mention a moaner.

    TECHSTUD is a moaner. You're a moaner. You're a moaner TECHSTUD. TECHSTUD is a moaner. Moaner.

Sign In or Register to comment.