Exactly, I think an ARM-based Apple TV could arrive at a BOM cost of about $50-75. That would let Apple price the device under the magic $200 point.
It would probably retain a similar form factor, mostly because of the cable connectors (component video, HDMI, audio, Ethernet). The NAND flash memory would probably be the priciest part (for caching/storage buffer) followed by the A4-based SoC.
There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. While I think that it's low it's absolutely possible if Apple wants to finally take the living room and thinks that it can make money on selling/renting content/subscriptions and/or wants to use it as a "halo effect" to sell other Apple products.
I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming. )
Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.
If Apple were smart they'd combine Apple TV, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme and Time Capsule into one device that becomes the hub for all of your other iDevices, such as iPhones, iPads, iMacs, etc. This would allow all those devices to share resources and have easy access to content, as well as act like a mini server and storage device that connects directly to your TV.
Check out these items from the iPhone 4 component prices:
A4 processor: 10.75
256MB RAM: 6.50
16GB Flash: 27.00
Power Management: 3.93
WiFi/Bluetooth: 7.80
PCBs, Acoustics, Connectors, etc.: 14.40
Accessories, Literature, Box Contents: 5.50
That's $75.88 right there. It would likely include more stuff I don't know about, but maybe lower prices due to less miniaturizing.
And that doesn't include manufacturing, shipping and Apple's comfortable margins.
What do you mean by acoustics?
While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.
I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming. )
Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.
I'm not abreast on HDCP issues concerning Component, but it wouldn't surprise me.
It is likely that Apple would put the power supply in the box itself (like they did with the recent Mac mini design). You're right that the logic board would be tiny. Maybe they could move the SD card slot to the front though.
It appears that Apple thinks optical media is dead, but I wonder if it would make sense to try to put a Blu-ray drive in this thing. (I know, I know, Steve thinks Blu-ray is a big bag of pain.)
Buying a network -- "looking for synergies from content + distribution" -- is a fool's errand.
Agreed. It also turns Apple into a direct competitor with the other content providers, which means their content begins and ends with the content they own. Not a good result. I think they are far better off trying to perfect distribution. They could blow away the competition in set top boxes if they had a serious interest in that market.
People don't want to pay for yet another set top box.
If Apple does create a new AppleTV box - the price to consumers will be $0.00 - They'll pay for the hardware through service subscriptions.
If the box is iPhone small, with an A4 and some flash memory - a better direction for Apple is encourage TV makers to create TVs with the hardware built-in. Or perhaps with a slot to accommodate the device. No additional remotes. No wires.
The AppleTV would just be another channel on the TV with downloadable content. apps (like AirVideo), YouTube.
C.
Your assertions beg the question of how Apple profits from this.
Will the TV set makers give Apple a small cut of the purchase price? Will Apple charge a fee for service? Will the "channel" run iAds but the content be free? A mixture of all of the above?
EDIT: Ah, I see you've already fielded similar questions. Pardon me for responding to your initial post before observing the response thread.
If Apple were smart they'd combine Apple TV, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme and Time Capsule into one device that becomes the hub for all of your other iDevices, such as iPhones, iPads, iMacs, etc. This would allow all those devices to share resources and have easy access to content, as well as act like a mini server and storage device that connects directly to your TV.
Now THAT is something I'd buy.
I have often thought that too. one pwr chord no pwr bricks and one HDMI cable. Think of the reduction of clutter, wires, etc.
$1 billion? A short pile of chips in today's marketplace. Apple can afford to bet a lot more if they indeed have another game-changer up their sleeve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland
I thought the same thing. $1B won't get you an Adobe ($14B), Intuit ($11B), Direct TV ($31B), etc.
I agree. I'd go for something bigger - especially since Jobs is talking about 'big, bold risks'.
Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.
some family just bought a new $1300 LED LCD TV. it has netflix, vudu, yahoo and google built in. i even uploaded some photos to their picasa this morning and a video to youtube so they can watch it tonight. next year this TV will be under $1000.
there is no computer required, no itunes needed, my inlaws can watch a lot of movies over netflix and rent movies from vudu. other TV's and blu ray players are even including pandora. if apple doesn't do something then iTunes is going the way of the dodo.
apple TV is overpriced and under featured when you compare it to game consoles and internet enabled TV's and blu ray players
I bought my LCD Sony about 4 years ago just before the Internet connect trend started. I also want to upgrade my alarm system to Internet connected model.
Are these TVs wifi enable or ethernet?
I'm not really looking forward to climbing around in the attic with a drill and a spool of Cat 6.
The one thing I don't like is my lack of choices in broadband connectivity. I have cable and the service/price ratio is really terrible.
As your guess seems most appropriate, I'd rather suggest a move towards german-american Elgato www.elgato.com/, whose EyeTV hardware/software for both Mac and PC (and iPhone/iPad) are among the most innovative and as I see it goes even more beyond "TV" as we know it than TiVo.
I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.
I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.
I use EyeTV as well in my office. I have often thought that Apple should buy them, however they are in Spain so I don't know how easy it would be to assimilate their knowledge/technology into the Apple corporate culture.
It wont be an Apple Television, just a new Apple TV device/OS and service. One that will also enable you to record TV shows from a cable connection in addition to buying content from iTunes and surfing the Internet from your E-Z Boy recliner.
As cable companies control the pipe that many people get their Internet service through, it would be hard for Apple to attempt to compete directly with cable companies in supplying content if they weren't somehow part of the whole deal, like AT&T and the iPhone. Unless Apple is planning to buy an entire TV Network and cable company, which it easily could with that much spare cash laying around,
this is all great speculation...I could even see Apple pairing with ATT's new U-Verse cable. Keeping it in the family, but in a good way. Apple does the UI for ATT program guide, includes a link to iOS, or even integrating the Cable Guide into the UI like an app. A DVR would have to happen thougth, and given that Jobs hates moving parts in his devices, a 64 GB hard-drive would hardly do it for a DVR. I could definately see that. Yet another thing for ATT to push. My household has thought of switching to ATT U-Verse, but the channel guide sucks, and it's about the same price as we pay for our Charter Cable and Internet.
My only consideration as to this being out of the question to a potential cable partner would be the Pay-per-View service. Itunes would eat into those profits and it would be a huge compromise for a cable company (as many are just skidding by on fumes) for apple to eat into what little profits they already make. On the Apple side, having to give up a little reliability of service, granted cable is (IMO) more reliable than SATV or DirectTV. But if it's ATT, most people would already know the story there.
It could be that Apple just releases an updated ATV box with the iOS built-in, and then let the cable/SATV/Dish/Over-air companies come up with Apps for the device. For example, if you have Cable (i.e. Charter, ATT, Comcast, etc). They would be able to offer an App for the ATV that allows a cable guide and DVR or OnDemand programming. We've already seen an ABC TV app for the iPad, why not NBC, CBS, TBS, FOX, etc. probive thier own app?
Heck, this in a way could elimante the need for Cable/SATV providers in general...It would also eliminate the need for scheduling, for the Neilson Ratings as well, they could track viewership by hits to shows and streams. Many how cool would that be? A-la-Carte TV, just the way iTunes does
While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
C.
I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. .
Consumers do not perceive a 3" device as a television. And a large screen HDTV cannot sell for $99, let's get real. Consumer expectations in regards to CE pricing has really gotten out of hand. We should expect to pay higher prices in the future as the dollar drops and the Chinese labor market demands to be treated better.
Most consumer electronics companies are very low margin. Apple does not want to play in that space. And furthermore, even if Apple did decide to produce a television, they would probably walk away from almost every industry standard established and produce a set with perhaps one HDMI port, an Ethernet port, a USB port and those "combined" audio ports that Apple uses on other devices.
There was a time when I thought that Apple should produce an A/V receiver, because the user experience on most current receivers is absurdly bad and complex, but lately I've decided that Apple is not the right company to build such a device. While their drive for simplicity is worthy in theory, they would probably destroy much of the needed capability and quality of a modern audio receiver. Steve only believes in portable devices anyway.
In regards to other posters' comments, Apple is not going to buy either ABC or NBC. Such networks might not even exist in ten years, the business is risky and it's also relatively low margin with very high infrastructure and content development costs. And even if he wanted it, any attempt by Jobs to purchase ABC would be seen as a conflict of interest. He would have to resign his seat on the Disney Board to do so. In fact, if he tried to acquire NBC, he'd also probably have to resign from the Board.
And Steve has already commented that he'd never buy an MSO cable company, because there are none that cover the entire U.S.
So I'm guessing that if Apple is going to get involved with TV, it's going to be something that makes it easier for consumers to get content onto their devices, but I'm unsure as to what form that would take.
Comments
Exactly, I think an ARM-based Apple TV could arrive at a BOM cost of about $50-75. That would let Apple price the device under the magic $200 point.
It would probably retain a similar form factor, mostly because of the cable connectors (component video, HDMI, audio, Ethernet). The NAND flash memory would probably be the priciest part (for caching/storage buffer) followed by the A4-based SoC.
There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. While I think that it's low it's absolutely possible if Apple wants to finally take the living room and thinks that it can make money on selling/renting content/subscriptions and/or wants to use it as a "halo effect" to sell other Apple products.
I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming.
Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.
Now THAT is something I'd buy.
Yeah, $99 is not going to happen!
Check out these items from the iPhone 4 component prices:
A4 processor: 10.75
256MB RAM: 6.50
16GB Flash: 27.00
Power Management: 3.93
WiFi/Bluetooth: 7.80
PCBs, Acoustics, Connectors, etc.: 14.40
Accessories, Literature, Box Contents: 5.50
That's $75.88 right there. It would likely include more stuff I don't know about, but maybe lower prices due to less miniaturizing.
And that doesn't include manufacturing, shipping and Apple's comfortable margins.
What do you mean by acoustics?
While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.
I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming.
Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.
I'm not abreast on HDCP issues concerning Component, but it wouldn't surprise me.
It is likely that Apple would put the power supply in the box itself (like they did with the recent Mac mini design). You're right that the logic board would be tiny. Maybe they could move the SD card slot to the front though.
It appears that Apple thinks optical media is dead, but I wonder if it would make sense to try to put a Blu-ray drive in this thing. (I know, I know, Steve thinks Blu-ray is a big bag of pain.)
Buying a network -- "looking for synergies from content + distribution" -- is a fool's errand.
Agreed. It also turns Apple into a direct competitor with the other content providers, which means their content begins and ends with the content they own. Not a good result. I think they are far better off trying to perfect distribution. They could blow away the competition in set top boxes if they had a serious interest in that market.
What do you mean by acoustics?
Speakers and microphones, I believe.
Speakers and microphones, I believe.
That's the only thing i can think of but none of that would be needed for the TV. All of that would be taken care of by another device.
rant s over
i am home for the next month recovering from surgery
lucky you guys have my inane wisdom 24/7
Hey Brucep hope you have a quick recovery!
Ps. Always enjoyed your comments!
Best
People don't want to pay for yet another set top box.
If Apple does create a new AppleTV box - the price to consumers will be $0.00 - They'll pay for the hardware through service subscriptions.
If the box is iPhone small, with an A4 and some flash memory - a better direction for Apple is encourage TV makers to create TVs with the hardware built-in. Or perhaps with a slot to accommodate the device. No additional remotes. No wires.
The AppleTV would just be another channel on the TV with downloadable content. apps (like AirVideo), YouTube.
C.
Your assertions beg the question of how Apple profits from this.
Will the TV set makers give Apple a small cut of the purchase price? Will Apple charge a fee for service? Will the "channel" run iAds but the content be free? A mixture of all of the above?
EDIT: Ah, I see you've already fielded similar questions. Pardon me for responding to your initial post before observing the response thread.
THompson
If Apple were smart they'd combine Apple TV, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme and Time Capsule into one device that becomes the hub for all of your other iDevices, such as iPhones, iPads, iMacs, etc. This would allow all those devices to share resources and have easy access to content, as well as act like a mini server and storage device that connects directly to your TV.
Now THAT is something I'd buy.
I have often thought that too. one pwr chord no pwr bricks and one HDMI cable. Think of the reduction of clutter, wires, etc.
Best
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...45#post1481645
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...65#post1643765
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...77#post1510877
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...89#post1439789
$1 billion? A short pile of chips in today's marketplace. Apple can afford to bet a lot more if they indeed have another game-changer up their sleeve.
I thought the same thing. $1B won't get you an Adobe ($14B), Intuit ($11B), Direct TV ($31B), etc.
I agree. I'd go for something bigger - especially since Jobs is talking about 'big, bold risks'.
Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.
some family just bought a new $1300 LED LCD TV. it has netflix, vudu, yahoo and google built in. i even uploaded some photos to their picasa this morning and a video to youtube so they can watch it tonight. next year this TV will be under $1000.
there is no computer required, no itunes needed, my inlaws can watch a lot of movies over netflix and rent movies from vudu. other TV's and blu ray players are even including pandora. if apple doesn't do something then iTunes is going the way of the dodo.
apple TV is overpriced and under featured when you compare it to game consoles and internet enabled TV's and blu ray players
I bought my LCD Sony about 4 years ago just before the Internet connect trend started. I also want to upgrade my alarm system to Internet connected model.
Are these TVs wifi enable or ethernet?
I'm not really looking forward to climbing around in the attic with a drill and a spool of Cat 6.
The one thing I don't like is my lack of choices in broadband connectivity. I have cable and the service/price ratio is really terrible.
As your guess seems most appropriate, I'd rather suggest a move towards german-american Elgato www.elgato.com/, whose EyeTV hardware/software for both Mac and PC (and iPhone/iPad) are among the most innovative and as I see it goes even more beyond "TV" as we know it than TiVo.
I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.
I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.
I use EyeTV as well in my office. I have often thought that Apple should buy them, however they are in Spain so I don't know how easy it would be to assimilate their knowledge/technology into the Apple corporate culture.
It wont be an Apple Television, just a new Apple TV device/OS and service. One that will also enable you to record TV shows from a cable connection in addition to buying content from iTunes and surfing the Internet from your E-Z Boy recliner.
As cable companies control the pipe that many people get their Internet service through, it would be hard for Apple to attempt to compete directly with cable companies in supplying content if they weren't somehow part of the whole deal, like AT&T and the iPhone. Unless Apple is planning to buy an entire TV Network and cable company, which it easily could with that much spare cash laying around,
this is all great speculation...I could even see Apple pairing with ATT's new U-Verse cable. Keeping it in the family, but in a good way. Apple does the UI for ATT program guide, includes a link to iOS, or even integrating the Cable Guide into the UI like an app. A DVR would have to happen thougth, and given that Jobs hates moving parts in his devices, a 64 GB hard-drive would hardly do it for a DVR. I could definately see that. Yet another thing for ATT to push. My household has thought of switching to ATT U-Verse, but the channel guide sucks, and it's about the same price as we pay for our Charter Cable and Internet.
My only consideration as to this being out of the question to a potential cable partner would be the Pay-per-View service. Itunes would eat into those profits and it would be a huge compromise for a cable company (as many are just skidding by on fumes) for apple to eat into what little profits they already make. On the Apple side, having to give up a little reliability of service, granted cable is (IMO) more reliable than SATV or DirectTV. But if it's ATT, most people would already know the story there.
It could be that Apple just releases an updated ATV box with the iOS built-in, and then let the cable/SATV/Dish/Over-air companies come up with Apps for the device. For example, if you have Cable (i.e. Charter, ATT, Comcast, etc). They would be able to offer an App for the ATV that allows a cable guide and DVR or OnDemand programming. We've already seen an ABC TV app for the iPad, why not NBC, CBS, TBS, FOX, etc. probive thier own app?
Heck, this in a way could elimante the need for Cable/SATV providers in general...It would also eliminate the need for scheduling, for the Neilson Ratings as well, they could track viewership by hits to shows and streams. Many how cool would that be? A-la-Carte TV, just the way iTunes does
What do you mean by acoustics?
While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
C.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
C.
I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. .
Consumers do not perceive a 3" device as a television. And a large screen HDTV cannot sell for $99, let's get real. Consumer expectations in regards to CE pricing has really gotten out of hand. We should expect to pay higher prices in the future as the dollar drops and the Chinese labor market demands to be treated better.
Most consumer electronics companies are very low margin. Apple does not want to play in that space. And furthermore, even if Apple did decide to produce a television, they would probably walk away from almost every industry standard established and produce a set with perhaps one HDMI port, an Ethernet port, a USB port and those "combined" audio ports that Apple uses on other devices.
There was a time when I thought that Apple should produce an A/V receiver, because the user experience on most current receivers is absurdly bad and complex, but lately I've decided that Apple is not the right company to build such a device. While their drive for simplicity is worthy in theory, they would probably destroy much of the needed capability and quality of a modern audio receiver. Steve only believes in portable devices anyway.
In regards to other posters' comments, Apple is not going to buy either ABC or NBC. Such networks might not even exist in ten years, the business is risky and it's also relatively low margin with very high infrastructure and content development costs. And even if he wanted it, any attempt by Jobs to purchase ABC would be seen as a conflict of interest. He would have to resign his seat on the Disney Board to do so. In fact, if he tried to acquire NBC, he'd also probably have to resign from the Board.
And Steve has already commented that he'd never buy an MSO cable company, because there are none that cover the entire U.S.
So I'm guessing that if Apple is going to get involved with TV, it's going to be something that makes it easier for consumers to get content onto their devices, but I'm unsure as to what form that would take.