I guess that in the final analysis, it's a matter of affordable hardware and unbeatable services, the ecosystem. Can Apple be successful there? Guess I know why I am just a spectator! \
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
That's certainly my feeling. And, of course, assorted "analysts" have predicted all kinds of products from Apple over the years that never shipped.
Cheers. Although the rumor is believable I agree it doesn't confirm anything.
I sometimes wonder just how many years ago Jobs held an iPad prototype in his hands.
I guess i'm in the minority of wanting an Apple-branded TV, complete with built-in DVR, web features, and Apps.
It seems the next obvious market, as TV 4.0 hits soon.
My fear? The sets will be too high in price. A $2000 TV is not going to sell.
Also, how many screen sizes? They won't have 12 screen sizes like the other manufacturers, i'm sure. But you should have one in the 20-,30-,40-, and 50-class ranges.
TVs are large expensive items, so they tend to have a long purchase cycle as far as electronics go. If you just plunked down 2 or 3 grand on a 50 > inch TV, you aren't going to buy a television from Apple anytime soon. Personally, I think they'd be better off folding the features they mentioned into the Apple TV, or offer a next tier up version that includes them. That way people who already have money sunk into a large flatscreen would be more likely to buy another "living room" product from Apple to go with it, and people who already have the relatively inexpensive current Apple TV would be more likely to replace it with something that costs far less than a smart TV, and could even make use of the AppleTV they already have by moving it to the bedroom, or something.
TVs are a low-margin business, like printers and scanners. Apple licenses bonjour and airplay (and such) to others to support wireless printing/scanning/audio/video. If Apple wanted to be in low-margin, mature, markets they'd still be selling printers and scanners.
Apple probably has built or retrofitted many prototype TVs with airplay circuitry built in.... to test airplay with multiple hardware configurations (different vendors), and this most likely is the origin of the report. This ensures that when LG, Samsung, etc, come out with airplay-compatible TVs it will just work and there will be no bad press from compatibility issues. This does not mean that Apple will be releasing "Apple" TVs.
AppleInsider: Please continue to publish rumors, but please consult a VP of Common Sense so that his/her comments can be included in the article. Thanks.
Predict it long enough and it may indeed come, just like the iPad took 7 years to get here from when rumors first started in 2002.
That being said, TVs generally have pretty low margins compared to the price of the product, and the margins needed to make a TV worthwhile would skyrocket the price into rich mans land. And TVs are probably one of the most held onto devices in a home.
They already have a connected box strategy and it looks like they are finally paying some real attention to it. I think they should focus their efforts there.
If they do do a TV, they are very likely going to continue to sell the Apple TV box. They are going to say anyone can pick up an Apple TV external box, but if you want the true Apple experience you're going to want Apple's TV. Not to mention it's easy to believe they could make triple the cash-profit on a TV than the little box. It's not about making 35% profit on this TV, it's about making more than the little box and it's about getting the living room. When they pretty much know in advance they will sell millions of something it makes it easier to bring down the price, at least a bit anyway. Obviously the price of this product for Apple is going to be crucial. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say Steve is not going to introduce this product until he can announce the base-model TV for at most $1 dollar under $1,000.
Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price.
Perhaps it is because I am not an analyst but I do not see how an Apple branded TV could see ever the light of day. Seriously, it is getting old.
with airplay now every tv is an apple tv and it costs almost zero (well $4) for manufacturers to add airplay in. I predict that within a year most will. And that airplay will evolve. There's no point for apple putting the circuitry in there when (and that's the genius twist) any ipad/iphone of the future can not only act as a controller but use the tv in any way it sees fit, so in essence you keep the same tv like people do for a no. of years,but you can get new features for it so to speak with an el cheapo new apple tv or your new ipad or iphone.
That's the strategy for apple pretty much, they are not idiots to dilute their brand name in the tv biz, but they are making some great devices to interface with a tv.
I think Apple needs to buy Comcast. The Cisco RNG-100 box and software is worse than Windows 95. It's actually on par with Windows 3. Apple needs to quit dabbling its toes in the water, and get serious about the living room.
Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?
Also, windows 3.1 was great. It's Windows 95 that was horrible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?
I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?
Agreed. This rumor doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Steve Jobs has already talked about why Apple isn't getting into this game anytime soon. In fact, the least of the problems is the margin on the hardware. The real issue is the business model the cable industry uses. They are giving away free hardware or renting it on a monthly basis in addition to the television packages. Apple doesn't see a way to make money in this market, which is why the Apple TV is marketed as a gadget/cool toy/hobby. Even building an Apple TV with DVR and all other functions doesn't make sense, because one still needs the cable box. These companies (Comcast, Verizon, etc.) have already invested tens of millions in the infrastructure that maintains and supports the hardware. They're not going to give up that model easily.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love an Apple TV that had blu-ray, DVR and storage. I just don't know that we're going to see it, much less an actual television with all these features.
Although Google TV has not quite taken off as much as they would have liked most SoCs ( System on Chips ) in modern connected TVs are moving to an Android OS on the application processor ( ARM A9, MIPS 74K, Intel Atom etc ). This means that all the Android APIs are there for developers and once Google gets a foothold it will be very difficult for anyone else to get into this market. That is if Apple would even want to.
Do you have any links to info about Android being in "most modern connected TVs"? That seems surprising to me, since most of the connected TVs I've seen have very rudimentary menu systems and nothing at all that functions like an OS.
Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?
Comcast's software was great until the sad day it turned sideways and purple and said "powered by Microsoft" in the corner. All they need to do is go back to that.
LOL, the 'smart TV' seems to be taking over from the tablet rumours of years gone by. It would make more sense to license Airplay for video.
It would make sense for Apple to do all three things. Licence Airplay. Sell the Apple TV box. And announce the Apple TV - the TV. Also, worth mentioning I think, they will very likely rename the little black box when they bring out the TV itself.
Apple could be as disruptive in the TV business as it has been with smartphones. You do not have to go far. Just make the app store available for Apple TV and you'll see the impact. Games my friend.
I don't think just apps-in-a-tv would be anywhere near as disruptive as Apple were with smartphones. Apple would need to do a lot more to equal the impact of the iPhone.
Samsung already sell a "Smart TV". I'm not sure how many of these they have sold, but they sell something like 40 million TVs a year.
There is also the Wii, X360 and PS3 which have sold 86 million, 52.6 million and 48.9 million respectively. All three offer online game sales from their equivalent of the iOS App Store.
The PS3 and X360 also support movie and TV rental as well as various other media streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, VidZone, VUDU and Sky Player.
So, like I said... if all Apple do is release a dev kit for the Apple TV (and/or embed it in their own TV) they would no doubt have a successful product, but I don't see it being anywhere near as disruptive as the iPhone was for the smartphone market.
Not unless they do something their competitors aren't already doing...
So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?
I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?
My hunch is that Apple would do to TVs what it did to mobile phones: bring out something far better, cooler, and easier than anything ever seen before. And it will be targeted at the high end, at least initially, with nice healthy profit margins built in. They will continue to make their money from selling the hardware but supported by vertically integrated software, services, and inexpensive digital content.
That would be awesome. Just have iTunes built right in without a separate box. Especially if jailbreak allows for clickr. I still don't understand why this space isnt exploding outside the geeky crowd like everything else did.
Comments
I guess that in the final analysis, it's a matter of affordable hardware and unbeatable services, the ecosystem. Can Apple be successful there? Guess I know why I am just a spectator!
That's certainly my feeling. And, of course, assorted "analysts" have predicted all kinds of products from Apple over the years that never shipped.
Cheers. Although the rumor is believable I agree it doesn't confirm anything.
I sometimes wonder just how many years ago Jobs held an iPad prototype in his hands.
.
It was rainy and cold last night...
.
The question I'd like answered Dick, is why the girl sells C cells by the sea shore?
Surely, it's not to power a new wave of devices!
The question I'd like answered Dick, is why the girl sells C cells by the sea shore?
Surely, it's not to power a new wave of devices!
Sheila, Sheila sittin' in the sea shore sand;
All day long she sits and sifts;
All day long she sifts and sits:
She sits and sifts, she sifts and sits;
She sifts and sits, she sits and sifts;
Sheila, Sheila sittin' in the sea shore sand;
It seems the next obvious market, as TV 4.0 hits soon.
My fear? The sets will be too high in price. A $2000 TV is not going to sell.
Also, how many screen sizes? They won't have 12 screen sizes like the other manufacturers, i'm sure. But you should have one in the 20-,30-,40-, and 50-class ranges.
Sheila, Sheila...
Good try but I got through that one without saying sh..... once!
I have no idea whether Apple is interested in a tv or not, however, if they are it won't be tv as we know it.
(I know, just stating the obvious!)
Apple probably has built or retrofitted many prototype TVs with airplay circuitry built in.... to test airplay with multiple hardware configurations (different vendors), and this most likely is the origin of the report. This ensures that when LG, Samsung, etc, come out with airplay-compatible TVs it will just work and there will be no bad press from compatibility issues. This does not mean that Apple will be releasing "Apple" TVs.
AppleInsider: Please continue to publish rumors, but please consult a VP of Common Sense so that his/her comments can be included in the article. Thanks.
Katy Huberty has no inside information. Just more spin from the shyster analysts.
I want to believe.
Good try but I got through that one without saying sh..... once!
I have no idea whether Apple is interested in a tv or not, however, if they are it won't be tv as we know it.
(I know, just stating the obvious!)
I agree!
But I was only preping you for the hard part (insert appropriate refrain between each verse):
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a shoe shine shop
All day long she sits and shines
All day long she shines and sits
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a shoe shine shop
Refrain
She sits and shines, she shines and sits;
She shines and sits, she sits and shines;
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a shoe shine shop.
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a seamstress shop.
All day long she snips and tucks,
all day long she tucks and snips.
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a seamstress shop.
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a Chevrolet.
All day long she sits and shifts
All day long she shifts and sits
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a Chevrolet.
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a sheet slitting shop.
All day long she slits her sheets,
all day long her sheets she slits,
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a sheet slitting shop
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a Honky-Tonk.
All day long she sips her Schlitz,
all day long her Schlitz she sips,
Sarah, Sarah, sitting in a Honky-Tonk.
...Scheiße
.
Predict it long enough and it may indeed come, just like the iPad took 7 years to get here from when rumors first started in 2002.
That being said, TVs generally have pretty low margins compared to the price of the product, and the margins needed to make a TV worthwhile would skyrocket the price into rich mans land. And TVs are probably one of the most held onto devices in a home.
They already have a connected box strategy and it looks like they are finally paying some real attention to it. I think they should focus their efforts there.
If they do do a TV, they are very likely going to continue to sell the Apple TV box. They are going to say anyone can pick up an Apple TV external box, but if you want the true Apple experience you're going to want Apple's TV. Not to mention it's easy to believe they could make triple the cash-profit on a TV than the little box. It's not about making 35% profit on this TV, it's about making more than the little box and it's about getting the living room. When they pretty much know in advance they will sell millions of something it makes it easier to bring down the price, at least a bit anyway. Obviously the price of this product for Apple is going to be crucial. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say Steve is not going to introduce this product until he can announce the base-model TV for at most $1 dollar under $1,000.
Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price.
Perhaps it is because I am not an analyst but I do not see how an Apple branded TV could see ever the light of day. Seriously, it is getting old.
with airplay now every tv is an apple tv and it costs almost zero (well $4) for manufacturers to add airplay in. I predict that within a year most will. And that airplay will evolve. There's no point for apple putting the circuitry in there when (and that's the genius twist) any ipad/iphone of the future can not only act as a controller but use the tv in any way it sees fit, so in essence you keep the same tv like people do for a no. of years,but you can get new features for it so to speak with an el cheapo new apple tv or your new ipad or iphone.
That's the strategy for apple pretty much, they are not idiots to dilute their brand name in the tv biz, but they are making some great devices to interface with a tv.
I think Apple needs to buy Comcast. The Cisco RNG-100 box and software is worse than Windows 95. It's actually on par with Windows 3.
Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?
Also, windows 3.1 was great. It's Windows 95 that was horrible.
So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?
I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?
Agreed. This rumor doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Steve Jobs has already talked about why Apple isn't getting into this game anytime soon. In fact, the least of the problems is the margin on the hardware. The real issue is the business model the cable industry uses. They are giving away free hardware or renting it on a monthly basis in addition to the television packages. Apple doesn't see a way to make money in this market, which is why the Apple TV is marketed as a gadget/cool toy/hobby. Even building an Apple TV with DVR and all other functions doesn't make sense, because one still needs the cable box. These companies (Comcast, Verizon, etc.) have already invested tens of millions in the infrastructure that maintains and supports the hardware. They're not going to give up that model easily.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love an Apple TV that had blu-ray, DVR and storage. I just don't know that we're going to see it, much less an actual television with all these features.
LOL, the 'smart TV' seems to be taking over from the tablet rumours of years gone by. It would make more sense to license Airplay for video.
Nah, it has to reach a crescendo of: "Apple must build a TV or they're DOOOOMED!!!" Hasn't quite gotten there yet.
Although Google TV has not quite taken off as much as they would have liked most SoCs ( System on Chips ) in modern connected TVs are moving to an Android OS on the application processor ( ARM A9, MIPS 74K, Intel Atom etc ). This means that all the Android APIs are there for developers and once Google gets a foothold it will be very difficult for anyone else to get into this market. That is if Apple would even want to.
Do you have any links to info about Android being in "most modern connected TVs"? That seems surprising to me, since most of the connected TVs I've seen have very rudimentary menu systems and nothing at all that functions like an OS.
Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?
Comcast's software was great until the sad day it turned sideways and purple and said "powered by Microsoft" in the corner. All they need to do is go back to that.
LOL, the 'smart TV' seems to be taking over from the tablet rumours of years gone by. It would make more sense to license Airplay for video.
It would make sense for Apple to do all three things. Licence Airplay. Sell the Apple TV box. And announce the Apple TV - the TV. Also, worth mentioning I think, they will very likely rename the little black box when they bring out the TV itself.
Apple could be as disruptive in the TV business as it has been with smartphones. You do not have to go far. Just make the app store available for Apple TV and you'll see the impact. Games my friend.
I don't think just apps-in-a-tv would be anywhere near as disruptive as Apple were with smartphones. Apple would need to do a lot more to equal the impact of the iPhone.
Samsung already sell a "Smart TV". I'm not sure how many of these they have sold, but they sell something like 40 million TVs a year.
There is also the Wii, X360 and PS3 which have sold 86 million, 52.6 million and 48.9 million respectively. All three offer online game sales from their equivalent of the iOS App Store.
The PS3 and X360 also support movie and TV rental as well as various other media streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, VidZone, VUDU and Sky Player.
In addition to this PS3 can also act as a PVR and the X360 can act as a cable box (in Australia at least!).
So, like I said... if all Apple do is release a dev kit for the Apple TV (and/or embed it in their own TV) they would no doubt have a successful product, but I don't see it being anywhere near as disruptive as the iPhone was for the smartphone market.
Not unless they do something their competitors aren't already doing...
So are we talking about an actual television here? Like a Cinema Display - but bigger - with an Apple TV built in?
I thought the consensus was that there isn't enough margin in TV's to make it something Apple would do... or is the idea to sell the screen low margin like other TV's and then profit from the extra iTunes movie/TV sales?
My hunch is that Apple would do to TVs what it did to mobile phones: bring out something far better, cooler, and easier than anything ever seen before. And it will be targeted at the high end, at least initially, with nice healthy profit margins built in. They will continue to make their money from selling the hardware but supported by vertically integrated software, services, and inexpensive digital content.
Thompson
Long story... even longer:
-- everyone watching American Idol running on the HDTV
-- my daughter (also) watching UCon vs SDSU on her iPad
-- me (also) watching Duke-Ariz on my iPad
-- me also watching BYU-Fla on a second iPad (1 grandson's iPad)
-- second grandson upstairs watching NetFlix on his iPad
-- no channel roulette, no distractions
To summarize, we were concurrently watching 5 different TV shows -- and only one TV set was involved.
The points:
1) Should Apple make an HDTV... No, I don't think they should!
You're household is totally typical