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?
If Apple wants to innovate in the living room then buying a cable co. might be the ticket. The cable co. free set boxes are stifling innovation.\
Can you imagine that... a Cable Company with a high customer satisfaction rating.
Oh wouldn't you miss visiting the friendly local Cable store * to pick up or exchange your cable box?
* with the bullet-proof glass and pass-through drawers... it conjures up the vision of a prison -- except you don't know whether you're on the inside or the outside.
Seriously, Comcast has a market cap of about $52 billion... how many major cable companies are there?
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one.
Comparing an Apple Branded Television to an Apple car or an Apple fridge is clearly missing the point. The all-in-one TV is heading towards the category of phones, whereby Apple pretty much had no choice by to eventually make a phone - because phones would eventually replace iPods. If Apple doesn't do a super all-in-one TV someone else will, and Apple will lose the living room to some other company. And we all know Apple doesn't want to lose the living room.
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.
The holy grail for the living room, as I see it, is a living room in the future with one physical remote. Not a universal remote, but 1 simple remote connected to a TV that does everything a regular person would want to in a simple manner with zero setup. That's the promise of an Apple all-in-one. It reminds me a lot of the phone market, where the built-in software is crap and really no one loves their TV. This market is ripe for the picking for Apple. They do great software, they have content, the want all your devices to connect, they love to be in control, they want the living room, and they like simplicity. It's pretty much perfect for Apple. The only difficult thing for them to do is to provide a high-quality all-in-one TV product for a price "millions" are willing to pay for it. I see the whole thing as a game-changer.
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons.
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here.
Hope you don't mind me cutting down on your quote to save space.
You make some very valid points. For myself, yes, I would willingly pay a premium for a TV with Apple design. As I said, when I've been looking for a TV there are a lot of choices, many with first class picture quality, but speaking for myself, considering how the living room is in many respects dominated by the TV, it matters to me what it looks like when it's turned off.
I think you're right about the cable companies not wanting to change the rules of the game, but that's why I specifically mentioned Dish Network. Surely one of the smaller players would be willing to work with Apple as a route to significantly increase market share?
Totally agree with you about gaming though. The new Apple TV could be a whole lot more if they opened it up for apps. The Wii showed that you don't need to compete with Sony and Microsoft in a spending money competition when designing hardware, and Apple TV could easily do the same, in my opinion. If games on the iPhone have proven nothing else, it is that there is a huge market for simple games.
Your average computer is a commodity low cost low profit item. Apple, however, doesn't compete in that arena. It competes in the high end category. Further, Apple is a smart company. If it releases a TV it will be competitive on price with higher end TVs, and it will offer something those TVs do not.
It is like the iPad, competitors are having trouble competing with Apple because 1) it has tied up the LCD panels, and 2) it has obtained a good price on components because it can prepay.
I for one need a new TV, but will hold out until at least the end of next year because I am hoping Apple will release one. So, yes, I would buy an Apple TV because I know it wouldn't e your average commodity product.
You are also assuming an Apple Television will do the same thing as a Apple TV box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
As many have said here, building a TV is a low margin, commoditized business. Have you noticed that "Premium" TV brands are not the best sellers (especially in times of recession). Unless they can offer something radically different, I will agree with most people here and say that Apple will most certainly not rebrand a Samsung panel with an Apple TV chip inside. Would you exchange your current TV for such a product for the cost of a new TV (plus "Apple tax") or simply purchase an AppleTV box? Most people would choose option B.
Someone mentioned licensing AirPlay. I think that would be smart if they can get the TV manufacturers to go along.
I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.
You are indeed the great oracle, prescient in all matters. Sorry, I forgot myself.
Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.
We currently have 3 TV's:
-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom
Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)
One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal
We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode
Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)
* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.
This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).
We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.
So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...
What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).
The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.
The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.
Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political
But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.
We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...
The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.
As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.
Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal
I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.
If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.
For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).
We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.
The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...
Quote:
...To Dawson Town came Percy Brown from London on the Thames.
A pane of glass was in his eye, and stockings on his stems...
Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price. [...]
Nah. Sure, analysts make crazy predictions to generate publicity. But not for Apple. They do it to promote themselves. Every one of them is trying to become the next "rock star" of the stock analysis world.
If an analysts makes a crazy prediction and it ends up being correct, they're golden. Brokerage firms will pay them for their "research" if they're independent. Or if they already work for a firm, they'll ask for a raise when their firm gets more clients.
And guess what. Nothing bad happens to analysts when their predictions are wrong. Nobody remembers their crazy claims from two years ago. And anyway, analysts are constantly getting it wrong trying to predict what Apple will be doing 2 or more years from now. Bad predictions just get lost in the noise.
The other thing stock analysts try to do is to put a spin on Apple news, in an attempt to manipulate AAPL stock up or down. They could do that because they have a long or short position on AAPL, respectively. Or maybe their firm has a long or short position on AAPL.
It's glaringly obvious that analyst A wants the stock to go up and analyst B wants it to go down. Analyst A will say "Apple is planning a great new thing, and all their existing things are going to sell better too because the competition is a year behind." Analyst B will say "Apple will face stiff competition in the XYZ market because of Brand X's upcoming thing, and Apple's old thing is producing a smaller percentage of Apple's profits."
Thorough reporting compels the author to reveal whether an analyst has a long or short position on AAPL stock. If you don't see a sentence near the end of the article with that info, you'd better look for traces of spin in the article itself.
No matter what, AAPL is one of the most heavily spun, manipulated, and hyped stocks out there. Just watch AAPL at the end of each quarter. Occasionally, for no apparent reason, the stock will suddenly drop just before the quarterly announcement. Not because of any bad news, not because the overall market is down. Just because some mysterious entity sold a huge amount of AAPL stock.
My guess is that some deep-pocket investor with a short position was willing to bribe a major shareholder to sell AAPL. To minimize the shorter's losses. And/or the major shareholder who sold tipped off a buddy looking to accumulate AAPL at a slightly lower price. In 3... 2... 1... sell.
Because Apple has always done the obvious thing. How silly of me.
With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.
With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.
Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.
So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.
I remember jobs introducing the first iPhone. He said the killer app for phones was "making telephone calls" and yet most in the audience didn't even use their contacts list bc one had to drill down into the menu options.
I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).
Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.
They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.
Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.
So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.
I remember jobs introducing the first iPhone. He said the killer app for phones was "making telephone calls" and yet most in the audience didn't even use their contacts list bc one had to drill down into the menu options.
I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).
Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.
They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.
There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.
I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.
With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.
In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.
That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?
Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.
PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?
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?
i thought so too...
if you look at the history of TV's, you'll see that when new Tech comes out (or the best model in the range) it typically looks comparative to what Apple sells products at as a target price point. But then they (other manuf's) radically reduce the prices to less than 50% over the course of a year or two, and the rest of the market follows.
Historically, Apple doesn't do that with their pricing. They lock in prices at a set target, and many many years will pass before they change. Look at the iMac as the prime example. The first iMac (1999) base price was $1,299. 12 years later, the Base model iMac is $1,199. Granted, the base price did increase between then...my point being that Apple looks at what people are willing to pay for their products and locks that price down.
Same goes with the iPod Classic. It's been $249 for many years, at least 6 from what I can dig up. Sure, Gen 1 was $399, but then Gen 3 started at $299 and that remained the starting price until 2005.
For an Apple iTV to work, Apple would serious have to lower their profit margins after Gen 1 to stay competitive. Look at the 42" LCD TV as a perfect example. The first iterations, you couldn't get one for less than $2400. Now you can get a good one for around $900, and sometimes even less than that. Apple would never do that.
With so much competition in the TV market, Apple couldn't possibly compete the way Sony, LG, Samsung, etc. do. They would have to sell this whole iTV for the price of their current Cinema Display (27" - $999). Anything above that, and it would sit as a "Niche" product, nothing like the iPod/Touch/Phone/Pad is today.
Not to mention the fact that TV's now days have all the same stuff that the Apple TV has now, including an equivalent version of the iTunes Store, just with Amazon or Netflix or Hulu built-in.
There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.
I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.
With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.
In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.
That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?
Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.
PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?
All good points, solipsism. Very thoughtful, as usual!
I would just add two things. 1. Job's summed the TV problem(s) as a " go to market" dilemma because, as you describe, the fractured nature of the content providers and regional cable/network companies bent on protecting their turf. And 2. I would consider a full-size AppleTV with built-in ATV, Apple interface, App store, games, etc., "Magical" and a true pleasure to use instead of the current craptastic interfaces I'm currently using. I guess "magical" is a relative term!
Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.
We currently have 3 TV's:
-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom
Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)
One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal
We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode
Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)
* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.
This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).
We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.
So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...
What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).
The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.
The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.
Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political
But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.
We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...
The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.
As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.
Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal
I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.
If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.
For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).
We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.
The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...
And he can explain what it means!
.
Warms my heart, Dick to read this.
Well before iPads and Macs...I used to get the little workbooks you could buy at supermarkets for say, 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc., and along with a set of magic markers that smelled like various fruits, at bedtime my daughter and I would do the next grade level workbooks. She would choose the "fragrance" and work the problems. I did this because it exposed her to the math and reading she would be encountering the next year. At five, we were looking under a microscope at already dead insect's wings, eyes and legs (I couldn't bring myself to kill them!) At seven, I got a footlong frog and dissecting kit from a University Lab supplier and along with my father (chemistry major) dissected the frog on a Saturday afternoon. At nine we built a plastic, 3' B-52 together and painted it pink and hung it up in her room! The model was for three-dimensional thinking. Something girls aren't really exposed to. At eleven, taught how to throw a football with a perfect spiral!
Now 26, she is entering her 3rd year of Med school. She's a dream!
Comments
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?
If Apple wants to innovate in the living room then buying a cable co. might be the ticket. The cable co. free set boxes are stifling innovation.
Can you imagine that... a Cable Company with a high customer satisfaction rating.
Oh wouldn't you miss visiting the friendly local Cable store * to pick up or exchange your cable box?
* with the bullet-proof glass and pass-through drawers... it conjures up the vision of a prison -- except you don't know whether you're on the inside or the outside.
Seriously, Comcast has a market cap of about $52 billion... how many major cable companies are there?
But the guys from Panasonic, Samsung and LG just look so dang happy!
That is future I DON'T want to live in.
Sadly, they could never call it iTV, that's taken
Never say never with Apple. If offered enough money iTV would play ball, just like Ping did.
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one.
Comparing an Apple Branded Television to an Apple car or an Apple fridge is clearly missing the point. The all-in-one TV is heading towards the category of phones, whereby Apple pretty much had no choice by to eventually make a phone - because phones would eventually replace iPods. If Apple doesn't do a super all-in-one TV someone else will, and Apple will lose the living room to some other company. And we all know Apple doesn't want to lose the living room.
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.
The holy grail for the living room, as I see it, is a living room in the future with one physical remote. Not a universal remote, but 1 simple remote connected to a TV that does everything a regular person would want to in a simple manner with zero setup. That's the promise of an Apple all-in-one. It reminds me a lot of the phone market, where the built-in software is crap and really no one loves their TV. This market is ripe for the picking for Apple. They do great software, they have content, the want all your devices to connect, they love to be in control, they want the living room, and they like simplicity. It's pretty much perfect for Apple. The only difficult thing for them to do is to provide a high-quality all-in-one TV product for a price "millions" are willing to pay for it. I see the whole thing as a game-changer.
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons.
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here.
Hope you don't mind me cutting down on your quote to save space.
You make some very valid points. For myself, yes, I would willingly pay a premium for a TV with Apple design. As I said, when I've been looking for a TV there are a lot of choices, many with first class picture quality, but speaking for myself, considering how the living room is in many respects dominated by the TV, it matters to me what it looks like when it's turned off.
I think you're right about the cable companies not wanting to change the rules of the game, but that's why I specifically mentioned Dish Network. Surely one of the smaller players would be willing to work with Apple as a route to significantly increase market share?
Totally agree with you about gaming though. The new Apple TV could be a whole lot more if they opened it up for apps. The Wii showed that you don't need to compete with Sony and Microsoft in a spending money competition when designing hardware, and Apple TV could easily do the same, in my opinion. If games on the iPhone have proven nothing else, it is that there is a huge market for simple games.
It is like the iPad, competitors are having trouble competing with Apple because 1) it has tied up the LCD panels, and 2) it has obtained a good price on components because it can prepay.
I for one need a new TV, but will hold out until at least the end of next year because I am hoping Apple will release one. So, yes, I would buy an Apple TV because I know it wouldn't e your average commodity product.
You are also assuming an Apple Television will do the same thing as a Apple TV box.
As many have said here, building a TV is a low margin, commoditized business. Have you noticed that "Premium" TV brands are not the best sellers (especially in times of recession). Unless they can offer something radically different, I will agree with most people here and say that Apple will most certainly not rebrand a Samsung panel with an Apple TV chip inside. Would you exchange your current TV for such a product for the cost of a new TV (plus "Apple tax") or simply purchase an AppleTV box? Most people would choose option B.
Someone mentioned licensing AirPlay. I think that would be smart if they can get the TV manufacturers to go along.
I don't see that as a solid prediction. The more solid prediction is Apple is going to make an all-in-one TV that's both internet and iTunes connected, and has Airplay built in.
You are indeed the great oracle, prescient in all matters. Sorry, I forgot myself.
You are indeed the great oracle, prescient in all matters. Sorry, I forgot myself.
I'm not. The most solid prediction is simply the obvious one.
You're household is totally typical
Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.
We currently have 3 TV's:
-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom
Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)
One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal
We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode
Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)
* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.
This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).
We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.
So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...
What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).
The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.
The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.
Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political
But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.
We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...
The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.
As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.
Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal
I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.
If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.
For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).
We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.
The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...
...To Dawson Town came Percy Brown from London on the Thames.
A pane of glass was in his eye, and stockings on his stems...
And he can explain what it means!
.
I'm not. The most solid prediction is simply the obvious one.
Because Apple has always done the obvious thing. How silly of me.
Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price. [...]
Nah. Sure, analysts make crazy predictions to generate publicity. But not for Apple. They do it to promote themselves. Every one of them is trying to become the next "rock star" of the stock analysis world.
If an analysts makes a crazy prediction and it ends up being correct, they're golden. Brokerage firms will pay them for their "research" if they're independent. Or if they already work for a firm, they'll ask for a raise when their firm gets more clients.
And guess what. Nothing bad happens to analysts when their predictions are wrong. Nobody remembers their crazy claims from two years ago. And anyway, analysts are constantly getting it wrong trying to predict what Apple will be doing 2 or more years from now. Bad predictions just get lost in the noise.
The other thing stock analysts try to do is to put a spin on Apple news, in an attempt to manipulate AAPL stock up or down. They could do that because they have a long or short position on AAPL, respectively. Or maybe their firm has a long or short position on AAPL.
It's glaringly obvious that analyst A wants the stock to go up and analyst B wants it to go down. Analyst A will say "Apple is planning a great new thing, and all their existing things are going to sell better too because the competition is a year behind." Analyst B will say "Apple will face stiff competition in the XYZ market because of Brand X's upcoming thing, and Apple's old thing is producing a smaller percentage of Apple's profits."
Thorough reporting compels the author to reveal whether an analyst has a long or short position on AAPL stock. If you don't see a sentence near the end of the article with that info, you'd better look for traces of spin in the article itself.
No matter what, AAPL is one of the most heavily spun, manipulated, and hyped stocks out there. Just watch AAPL at the end of each quarter. Occasionally, for no apparent reason, the stock will suddenly drop just before the quarterly announcement. Not because of any bad news, not because the overall market is down. Just because some mysterious entity sold a huge amount of AAPL stock.
My guess is that some deep-pocket investor with a short position was willing to bribe a major shareholder to sell AAPL. To minimize the shorter's losses. And/or the major shareholder who sold tipped off a buddy looking to accumulate AAPL at a slightly lower price. In 3... 2... 1... sell.
Because Apple has always done the obvious thing. How silly of me.
With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.
With the iPad Apple gave everyone less than they imagined. You're not being silly, but that comment was. This TV won't make ice-cream, it'll just be a great TV. It won't work miracles, or be magical like they try to claim the iPad is - it is not magical, but it will be the best all-in-one networked TV on the market. The promise of a living room with one remote is still yet to be fulfilled.
Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.
So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.
I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).
Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.
They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.
Even if I agreed with you, it still doesn't rationalize your prediction. My point was, the predictions are generally wrong. You've as much as admitted this, so I'm not sure I know what you are arguing anymore. If there's one safe take-away from the last ten years of Apple-watching it's that Apple never assaults a market head-on. They come up with imaginative flanking maneuvers. If it was trivial or even possible to guess which maneuver they were going to use in any given market, then their competitors would not be left gasping for air, as they are so often.
So predict away, but prepare yourself for being wrong. Myself, I am prepared to be surprised.
Ok. Ok.
I remember jobs introducing the first iPhone. He said the killer app for phones was "making telephone calls" and yet most in the audience didn't even use their contacts list bc one had to drill down into the menu options.
I can see the same for television. The tv and cable DVR interfaces are abysmal. I can see Apple "organizing" our TV the same way they organized our phones for us. The TV and movie industry will reluctantly get onboard (eg. NetFlix).
Especially, when you throw in Apps, games, subscriptions, etc.
They've got the stores! I don't see how apple could not be developing a TV.
There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.
I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.
With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.
In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.
That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?
Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.
PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?
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?
i thought so too...
if you look at the history of TV's, you'll see that when new Tech comes out (or the best model in the range) it typically looks comparative to what Apple sells products at as a target price point. But then they (other manuf's) radically reduce the prices to less than 50% over the course of a year or two, and the rest of the market follows.
Historically, Apple doesn't do that with their pricing. They lock in prices at a set target, and many many years will pass before they change. Look at the iMac as the prime example. The first iMac (1999) base price was $1,299. 12 years later, the Base model iMac is $1,199. Granted, the base price did increase between then...my point being that Apple looks at what people are willing to pay for their products and locks that price down.
Same goes with the iPod Classic. It's been $249 for many years, at least 6 from what I can dig up. Sure, Gen 1 was $399, but then Gen 3 started at $299 and that remained the starting price until 2005.
For an Apple iTV to work, Apple would serious have to lower their profit margins after Gen 1 to stay competitive. Look at the 42" LCD TV as a perfect example. The first iterations, you couldn't get one for less than $2400. Now you can get a good one for around $900, and sometimes even less than that. Apple would never do that.
With so much competition in the TV market, Apple couldn't possibly compete the way Sony, LG, Samsung, etc. do. They would have to sell this whole iTV for the price of their current Cinema Display (27" - $999). Anything above that, and it would sit as a "Niche" product, nothing like the iPod/Touch/Phone/Pad is today.
Not to mention the fact that TV's now days have all the same stuff that the Apple TV has now, including an equivalent version of the iTunes Store, just with Amazon or Netflix or Hulu built-in.
There only "easy" attempt to get media owners on-board was with the iTunes Music Store, and that was because, at the time, Apple wasn't considered a threat.
I put easy in quotes because the truth is considerably much more complex than that. From what I recall the content owners wanted to rent music but Jobs said it would fail. Despite many attempts to ink a deal they weren't able to until they were finally willing to try something new with this once near-death company that was now making a decent profit on these newfangled iPods.
With the AppleTV they did something we've rarely seen from Apple. They introduced a product that wasn't finished and didn't yet a have a name. They introduced the iTV at the iPod event about 5 months before they did a proper demo in January 2007 with the name, price point and launch date for the AppleTV. I think this unusual introduction and showcasing of Disney owned content was an attempt to get the other video content owners on-board with the iTunes Store. They were now powerful, but that power came with it a fear that Apple might do to video what they did to music. We know this didn't work out so well and the AppleTV flailed as a semi-useful device until what appears to be a market shift and Apple kowtowing to their demands so they wouldn't be left behind.
In the past 6 months we've seen a couple clues outside of Apple. For starters we have GoogleTV which appeared to have a decent model of working with the networks, not trying to usurp them, yet the networks shunned GoogleTV. Sure, it would have failed anyway from cost, complexity, and performance, but that's another story altogether. Then we two very recent occurrences. One is the Time Warner iPad app that is making some cable networks uneasy. The other is Showtime potentially pulling their content from Netflix when their contract is up.
That's only talking about the SW and services, the logistics of the size and type TV sets that people use are also very different. Do the "one device to rule them all" mentality even transfer well internationally with televisions?
Whatever Apple does it has to be a unique move in the way Dr Millmoss suggests, not simply slapping an Apple logo on some expensive TV HW and mimicking what these others have tried to do. There is nothing magical about that.
PS: Jobs has even stated that Apple-made cable boxes are complex because there is no single standard among cable setups, even in the US? How true is this? How hard would it be for Apple to make a universal box? Are cable cards dead or are they evolving to the point that this could be viable? Could Thunderbolt, which pushes video and data, be useful for the future of the HEC?
All good points, solipsism. Very thoughtful, as usual!
I would just add two things. 1. Job's summed the TV problem(s) as a " go to market" dilemma because, as you describe, the fractured nature of the content providers and regional cable/network companies bent on protecting their turf. And 2. I would consider a full-size AppleTV with built-in ATV, Apple interface, App store, games, etc., "Magical" and a true pleasure to use instead of the current craptastic interfaces I'm currently using. I guess "magical" is a relative term!
Best and enjoyed your comments.
Actually, I think this will be typical within a few years.
We currently have 3 TV's:
-- family room HEC HDTV, Cable, AppleTV, Airport Extreme etc
-- my bedroom
-- my daughter's bedroom
Each of the three kids would like their own TV in their room (2 boys share a room)
One problem with this is that we can't connect any more TVs to the cable without degrading the signal
We currently have Macs used as general-purpose computers
-- Family room - iMac, printer, scanner shared by all family members - schedules, recipes, homework, social, etc.
-- den/office - My main heavy-lifting computer, FCP, XCode, etc
-- den/office - Mac Mini as an iTunes & iPhoto Media Server
-- my bedroom iMac - my light-lifting computer Stocks, FCP, XCode
Each of the three kids would like their own Mac * in their room (2 boys share a room)
* you can see where this is going -- sometimes when there is a conflict, the kids will use the computer in the den or my bedroom -- but I/they/prefer not.
This was the state of things at the beginning of the school year as my granddaughter entered high school and wanted to buy an inexpensive netbook or notebook (1 grandson in Middle school, other at last grade in elementary scrool).
We convinced her to buy an iPad 2 instead -- My daughter and I had iPad 1s -- we upgraded to iPad 2s and handed the iPad 1s down to the two grandsons.
So now everyone has their own, personal, iPad that is used for study, homework, social, games NetFlix, Itunes sharing...
What's missing is an inexpensive way to stream live TV to these PECs (Personal Entertainment Centers).
The example, using the NCAA iPad app to watch 5 different TV channels concurrently, shows that this is possible and practical -- and it didn't come out of the cable box -- it came out of the AirPortExtreme hooked to the Internet Cable modem.
The Cable Modem and Cable STB are hooked to the same cable.
Again, I understand there are turf wars and parties with vested interests -- financial, legal and political
But I don't want to buy a personal computer, a cable connection, a TV and a STB for every room.
We already have all the "boxes" we need -- except one...
The box that can decode TV signals and re-broadcast them over WiFi to our PECs and Computers.
As the existing TVs (and their associated STBs) age, we could opt to replace them with a DumbTV -- a Display with the ability to run a receiver app like the NCAA.
Ya' know, we could actually have more than 3 TVs -- because they wouldn't degrade the cable signal
I am a frugal SOB, but I invested about $5,000 to provide each person with a PEC in lieu of a computer and a [hopefully, soon to be alternative to a] TV.
If I'm wrong, so be it -- we will all have regained the money, many, many times over from this magical device.
For example, we read together as a family, several times a week. Each takes a turn reading aloud, we pause to ask/answer questions (what does that word mean, what is the author trying to say, how should that phrase be emphasized, etc.).
We used to pass around a single book, but now each can follow along on his iPad.
The, youngest, the 11 year old boy, has gone from poor grades to the top of his class in reading. He is a regular raconteur -- you should hear him read Ice-Worm Cocktail...
And he can explain what it means!
.
Warms my heart, Dick to read this.
Well before iPads and Macs...I used to get the little workbooks you could buy at supermarkets for say, 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc., and along with a set of magic markers that smelled like various fruits, at bedtime my daughter and I would do the next grade level workbooks. She would choose the "fragrance" and work the problems. I did this because it exposed her to the math and reading she would be encountering the next year. At five, we were looking under a microscope at already dead insect's wings, eyes and legs (I couldn't bring myself to kill them!) At seven, I got a footlong frog and dissecting kit from a University Lab supplier and along with my father (chemistry major) dissected the frog on a Saturday afternoon. At nine we built a plastic, 3' B-52 together and painted it pink and hung it up in her room! The model was for three-dimensional thinking. Something girls aren't really exposed to. At eleven, taught how to throw a football with a perfect spiral!
Now 26, she is entering her 3rd year of Med school. She's a dream!
Best and great job, Dick!