About 70% of US households have a flatscreen TV. Demand for flatscreens is now soft enough to force manufacturers to speed up their price cuts. New features like 3D and LED backlighting aren't going to indefinitely support higher prices for the top-end models.
The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.
ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.
It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.
About 70% of US households have a flatscreen TV. Demand for flatscreens is now soft enough to force manufacturers to speed up their price cuts. New features like 3D and LED backlighting aren't going to indefinitely support higher prices for the top-end models.
The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.
ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.
It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.
Good points Kcar. But I can see Apple bringing a lot to the table. I mean, after all, look at the effort and thought they have put into the redesign of something as mundane as their keyboard, mouse and trackpad (and aluminum remote, for that matter).
I could see them treating the TV as they have treated the iMac. Make it thin, elegant, large screen, great interface, all-in-one and no wires except for the one power cable, of course.
I've said it here often enough, the current ATV is well worth the price of admission if nothing more than having all your photos streamed to your flat screen TV with some light jazz playing in the background. All my friends are extremely impressed and mesmerized by it. Make sure you have some photos of your friends in there. They seem to really enjoy seeing photos of themselves for some reason.
The all-in-one Apple HDTV would be worth the price of admission just to have a decent remote designed by Apple that the TV would come with. Possibly an Apple aluminum, wireless game controller, too.
Imagine walking into your living room and all your photos and video are automatically streamed to you TV.
First, I don't think apple will introduce a panel until ridiculously thin led tv can rival the picture quality of a plasma. It's close but not quite there. Sorry to offend anyone about is. Apple loves thin.
Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.
Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.
Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.
The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.
Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.
First, I don't think apple will introduce a panel until ridiculously thin led tv can rival the picture quality of a plasma. It's close but not quite there. Sorry to offend anyone about is. Apple loves thin.
Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.
Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.
Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.
The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.
Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.
A couple of questions I have are:
° How many people would never buy a computer beyond the most basic PC?
° How many of those people love their TV and have a reasonably broad pipe outside the home?
The answers would probably be demographically quite distinct (or not) but might give an indication of the potential for AppleTV as a viable business. Removing the notion of a computer from the equation might be quite compelling.
It's amazing how so many people seem to know exactly what "makes sense" for Apple to do, or not do, in the TV market. The problem is, I remember when many customers were wondering why Apple wasn't making a PDA, because it was so wrong to cede that market to others. Just one example of the conventional wisdom being wrong.
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
Today Apple has a near monopoly of the PDA market.
The iPod Touch is the only PDA I still see people using.
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.
The Apple TV is the right strategy for the living room as it works with existing TV sets and serves the intended purpose: to enable the consumption of iTunes content. They can definitely improve on it (2 thumbs up for adding Netflix support but what about Apple TV Apps?) but it cannot be a better product if it were simply integrated with the TV panel.
Let's remember that Apple entered the smartphone and tablet markets because their offerings were disruptive. They were groundbreaking innovations. The Apple TV in its current form is not a game changer and only proved to be a success after a significant price reduction. That says a lot: consumers are not interested to spend a lot of money to get iTunes content on their TV sets.
Unless these highly paid analysts have something insightful that they are not sharing, an Apple branded TV is not a good idea. Apple is better off focusing on its core competencies.
Core competencies like music and video delivery devices and systems? Duh? Does perhaps an advanced TV fit into this category which primarily relies on the internet and the cloud and a beautifully integrated easy to use and intuitive consumer interface? Me thinks so.
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.
How about buying Netflix and make it the I tunes of video and a game changer ?
Netflix is only valued at ???what 11 billion or so ? I think and are also getting targeted by the "haters"- would make a good marriage and another game changer for us little people-and BTW I would be at the front of the line to buy an apple TV in the meantime....another thought...would love those two to get together and kick some corporate legacy ass ! The legacy corps have had it too long and have gotten too greedy and full of themselves ...time to get some heels broken. You know Steve J. is not doing it for the $$$- he wants to change the game---Got My vote !
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? ...
Anyone in the USA who has ever subscribed to cable or satellite TV knows that it is true in spades. What is more cable breaks down to individual local franchises. In Podunk, the cable company is ShadyPalm. Your neighbor across the street lives in East Podunk. Over there, the cable franchise is owned by Speedydata. Different channel lineups; different price structure; different equipment. Many franchises have multiple cable franchises. And even when the same company holds the franchise in adjacent localities, there are likely to be differences between them. There are exceptions such as Bright House in Central Florida. However, Bright House is just that--the exception.
Having said that, each cable company has a Federal mandate to support CableCard a PC card-sized cable decoder that you may insert into the CableCard slot of your digital TV. This does the same job as the STB. However, when my cable provider started offering HD channels, no one in the company office even knew what CableCard was. It is my understanding that this situation has since changed. However, the flipside is that many HDTV set manufacturers don't offer CableCard slots on their TVs.
An Apple HDTV could feature CableCard slots. and with its clout force the cable providers to support this Federally-mandated feature. However, CableCard does not provide DVR functionality. If you ever had a DVR, then you will never want to live without it.
With the iPhone, Apple worked with a single company that used a single set of standards to revolutionize the mobile phone. TV is immeasurably more complex. That is just on the provider side.
On the customer side, this bleating for an Apple HDTV seems driven by the college crowd who watch TV in their dorm rooms on their computers. For people who have more space, it is a much tougher sell. As I write this, I am watching my HDTV on a 37" Sharp while I write this post on my Power Mac G5. In my apartment, I have only three TVs. There was a time when there was one TV per household. As portables and tabletops became popular, TVs proliferated into the bedroom, den, garage, and elsewhere. Today, many homes have several TVs in single rooms and at least one TV in almost every room. It's Max Headroom without the static.
I thought steve said during the All Things-D conference, that making a TV is a pain... because the industry is too fragmented? something about the industry doesn't have a universal standard for broadcasting... so their approach of Apple TV and iTunes is the best at the moment... correct me if am wrong!
I thought steve said during the All Things-D conference, that making a TV is a pain... because the industry is too fragmented? something about the industry doesn't have a universal standard for broadcasting... so their approach of Apple TV and iTunes is the best at the moment... correct me if am wrong!
You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.
As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.
Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.
You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.
As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.
Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.
It sounds like that even if Apple does make a TV with an AppleTV inside, there will still be input switching for Blu-ray players, cable boxes, DVRs and any other input devices one might attach. I don?t see the gain here for Apple.
Having less wires and components is nice, but since you don?t move your TV around having it be a dumb display isn?t a bad thing. Set it and forget it. Perhaps what Apple is working on is with CableCards or an AppleTV that is an intermediary device, like a receiver for your stereo system, that all other input devices plug into. Having said that, that in itself could also be within a TV, but I still don?t see the reason to build ?a? TV when the size, and types run a wide gamet and are not easy to store in bulk at Apple Stores.
Let's consider the content model of Apple's existing devices:
iPod-- iTunes. You can put any appropriately encoded content you want into iTunes, but the iTunes music store is the main channel. Apple was able to establish this model because there wasn't a robust way of buying digital music prior to the iTunes music store.
Macs-- You can buy any compatible software you want, but Apple has recently opened the Mac App Store, so they're interested in moving the Mac towards the iOS model. You can purchase, download or stream any compatible media, but that basically entails using a browser or purchasing/renting optical media. Again, the iTunes store is clearly Apple's preferred media delivery system.
iOS devices-- App Store for apps, similar to iPod for media. Same as Mac for dl or streaming media, sans Flash.
For Macs and iOS devices, "content" is mostly about applications with media being an enhancement. For the iPod, it's all content, with close coupling to the iTunes Store.
So what about television? All content, with no way to privilege iTunes. Nobody wants a TV that's mostly an iTunes portal. They want cable, broadcast, connected optical devices, on demand services and streaming services.
Apple has never made anything like that, a device that's primarily a client for content that isn't served by Apple. That's why I think they never will-- 95% of what a TV does has nothing to do with Apple, and there's no way for Apple to change that. They can't bring the iTunes store model to cable or broadcast TV, not unless the content providers do an abrupt about face and allow vastly more access than they are now.
Baring that, a television is deeply antithetical to how Apple does business.
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?
...or that broadcast television is dead and watching tv shows online is so much better... or that DVR capability conflicts with iTunes sales.
It sounds like that even if Apple does make a TV with an AppleTV inside, there will still be input switching for Blu-ray players, cable boxes, DVRs and any other input devices one might attach. I don’t see the gain here for Apple.
I notice most of the new Blu-Ray players, even though they're not recorders, have an HDMI input, so you can run one cable from your cable box, through your Blu-Ray player, and into the same input on your TV. When the player's off, the signal just feeds through. (Just like the Bad Old Days—coax to VCR to TV.) I don't know why they couldn't have done something similar with DVD players—it would have saved a lot of aggravation.
Comments
The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.
ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.
It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.
About 70% of US households have a flatscreen TV. Demand for flatscreens is now soft enough to force manufacturers to speed up their price cuts. New features like 3D and LED backlighting aren't going to indefinitely support higher prices for the top-end models.
The idea of an Apple Smart TV sounds nice but...I don't see it. In the current global recession, consumers aren't going to replace their current TVs for a TV that integrates current Apple offerings like iTunes, the App store, iPhone and iPad. Apple will have to offer still more like Netflix and even then that probably won't be enough to make consumers jump.
ALSO: Apple isn't terribly competitive when it comes to making Apple computer displays. Yes, when they come out with a new monitor it's got great specs--but the price is way too high. And Apple takes way too long to refresh its display offerings. I doubt it could keep in the highly competitive TV market all on its own.
It might make more sense if Apple partnered up with existing manufacturers like Sony or Toshiba. Offer consumers a Smart TV add-on package to a Vizio, a package that includes all the above possibilities plus Air Play.
Good points Kcar. But I can see Apple bringing a lot to the table. I mean, after all, look at the effort and thought they have put into the redesign of something as mundane as their keyboard, mouse and trackpad (and aluminum remote, for that matter).
I could see them treating the TV as they have treated the iMac. Make it thin, elegant, large screen, great interface, all-in-one and no wires except for the one power cable, of course.
I've said it here often enough, the current ATV is well worth the price of admission if nothing more than having all your photos streamed to your flat screen TV with some light jazz playing in the background. All my friends are extremely impressed and mesmerized by it. Make sure you have some photos of your friends in there. They seem to really enjoy seeing photos of themselves for some reason.
The all-in-one Apple HDTV would be worth the price of admission just to have a decent remote designed by Apple that the TV would come with. Possibly an Apple aluminum, wireless game controller, too.
Imagine walking into your living room and all your photos and video are automatically streamed to you TV.
Best!
Two reasons Apple should sell its own flat panel TV:
1) No other manufacturer is selling just one good model of TV;
2) No other manufacturer provides a clean, 6-button remote interface.
Bingo!
Something similar in logic to Apple TV gen. 2
Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.
Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.
Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.
The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.
Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.
And yes.... remote control is the most important thing in TV set
So glad you are not working for Apple. What a facile comment!
PS. Look it up!
First, I don't think apple will introduce a panel until ridiculously thin led tv can rival the picture quality of a plasma. It's close but not quite there. Sorry to offend anyone about is. Apple loves thin.
Reinvent the tv:
one remote to rule them all. I think hdmi allows control of peripheral devices. Eg I have a panasonic plasma and BD player. They have something called viera-link that allows the remote of one to control the other. Seems proprietary, though. But I could see a standard developed. This would be very very apple aesthetically. An iPod touch as a remote, and the buttons change depending on which devices you have.
Heard of On-Live? A cloud gaming service rented by hour. The set top box is about a hundred dollars. Started by an apple alumnus. It is very impressive.
Apps, not just the few clunky ones you get with a modern tv, but THE APP STORE in all it's glory.
The capabilities of the current ATF, obviously.
Streaming cable shows, or possibly a la carte channel rentals so you don't have to subsidize crappy channels you never watch. Advertisements per iAd that are targeted appropriately demographically.
A couple of questions I have are:
° How many people would never buy a computer beyond the most basic PC?
° How many of those people love their TV and have a reasonably broad pipe outside the home?
The answers would probably be demographically quite distinct (or not) but might give an indication of the potential for AppleTV as a viable business. Removing the notion of a computer from the equation might be quite compelling.
The musings of a casual observer.
It's amazing how so many people seem to know exactly what "makes sense" for Apple to do, or not do, in the TV market. The problem is, I remember when many customers were wondering why Apple wasn't making a PDA, because it was so wrong to cede that market to others. Just one example of the conventional wisdom being wrong.
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
Today Apple has a near monopoly of the PDA market.
The iPod Touch is the only PDA I still see people using.
I bet it will be "smart". You will have to have Apple ID account and credit card linked to it plus mandatory Internet access in order to turn on.
Something similar in logic to Apple TV gen. 2
The wink implies that none of these conditions are true for the Apple TV, then?
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.
The Apple TV is the right strategy for the living room as it works with existing TV sets and serves the intended purpose: to enable the consumption of iTunes content. They can definitely improve on it (2 thumbs up for adding Netflix support but what about Apple TV Apps?) but it cannot be a better product if it were simply integrated with the TV panel.
Let's remember that Apple entered the smartphone and tablet markets because their offerings were disruptive. They were groundbreaking innovations. The Apple TV in its current form is not a game changer and only proved to be a success after a significant price reduction. That says a lot: consumers are not interested to spend a lot of money to get iTunes content on their TV sets.
Unless these highly paid analysts have something insightful that they are not sharing, an Apple branded TV is not a good idea. Apple is better off focusing on its core competencies.
Core competencies like music and video delivery devices and systems? Duh? Does perhaps an advanced TV fit into this category which primarily relies on the internet and the cloud and a beautifully integrated easy to use and intuitive consumer interface? Me thinks so.
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.
How about buying Netflix and make it the I tunes of video and a game changer ?
Netflix is only valued at ???what 11 billion or so ? I think and are also getting targeted by the "haters"- would make a good marriage and another game changer for us little people-and BTW I would be at the front of the line to buy an apple TV in the meantime....another thought...would love those two to get together and kick some corporate legacy ass ! The legacy corps have had it too long and have gotten too greedy and full of themselves ...time to get some heels broken. You know Steve J. is not doing it for the $$$- he wants to change the game---Got My vote !
Today Apple has a near monopoly of the PDA market.
The iPod Touch is the only PDA I still see people using.
I guess that you didn't get my point.
...
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? ...
Anyone in the USA who has ever subscribed to cable or satellite TV knows that it is true in spades. What is more cable breaks down to individual local franchises. In Podunk, the cable company is ShadyPalm. Your neighbor across the street lives in East Podunk. Over there, the cable franchise is owned by Speedydata. Different channel lineups; different price structure; different equipment. Many franchises have multiple cable franchises. And even when the same company holds the franchise in adjacent localities, there are likely to be differences between them. There are exceptions such as Bright House in Central Florida. However, Bright House is just that--the exception.
Having said that, each cable company has a Federal mandate to support CableCard a PC card-sized cable decoder that you may insert into the CableCard slot of your digital TV. This does the same job as the STB. However, when my cable provider started offering HD channels, no one in the company office even knew what CableCard was. It is my understanding that this situation has since changed. However, the flipside is that many HDTV set manufacturers don't offer CableCard slots on their TVs.
An Apple HDTV could feature CableCard slots. and with its clout force the cable providers to support this Federally-mandated feature. However, CableCard does not provide DVR functionality. If you ever had a DVR, then you will never want to live without it.
With the iPhone, Apple worked with a single company that used a single set of standards to revolutionize the mobile phone. TV is immeasurably more complex. That is just on the provider side.
On the customer side, this bleating for an Apple HDTV seems driven by the college crowd who watch TV in their dorm rooms on their computers. For people who have more space, it is a much tougher sell. As I write this, I am watching my HDTV on a 37" Sharp while I write this post on my Power Mac G5. In my apartment, I have only three TVs. There was a time when there was one TV per household. As portables and tabletops became popular, TVs proliferated into the bedroom, den, garage, and elsewhere. Today, many homes have several TVs in single rooms and at least one TV in almost every room. It's Max Headroom without the static.
I thought steve said during the All Things-D conference, that making a TV is a pain... because the industry is too fragmented? something about the industry doesn't have a universal standard for broadcasting... so their approach of Apple TV and iTunes is the best at the moment... correct me if am wrong!
You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.
As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.
Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.
You're wrong. In each country, there is one analog broadcast standard and a second digital broadcast standard. In countries that have mandated 100% digital, there is a single broadcast standard. Broadcast is not the issue. Cable is. Let me use the USA as an example because the USA is where I live and know best. Cable still transmits analog using NTSC. Cable also transmits unscrambled digital programming using ClearQAM. I am not sure, but I believe that some cable systems use the digital broadcast standard ATSC. However, the real knot is scrambled digital transmission. Virtually all non-broadcast HDTV cable content is scrambled. This means that you get it only if you pay for a STB, HD DVR, or CableCard.
As I said in my previous post, this is much more complicated than the case of telephones. In the case of telephones, Apple chose to work with a single provider in the USA. It has recently expanded to two. It is my understanding that there were five scrambling standards for analog TV. One can imagine that there are at least that many scrambling standards for digital TV.
Could you imagine going to Best Buy or the Apple Store and choosing the right TV for your provider? Could you imagine what will happen when you move to a different city that uses a different cable franchise? I can assure you that it will be a very non-Apple experience.
It sounds like that even if Apple does make a TV with an AppleTV inside, there will still be input switching for Blu-ray players, cable boxes, DVRs and any other input devices one might attach. I don?t see the gain here for Apple.
Having less wires and components is nice, but since you don?t move your TV around having it be a dumb display isn?t a bad thing. Set it and forget it. Perhaps what Apple is working on is with CableCards or an AppleTV that is an intermediary device, like a receiver for your stereo system, that all other input devices plug into. Having said that, that in itself could also be within a TV, but I still don?t see the reason to build ?a? TV when the size, and types run a wide gamet and are not easy to store in bulk at Apple Stores.
iPod-- iTunes. You can put any appropriately encoded content you want into iTunes, but the iTunes music store is the main channel. Apple was able to establish this model because there wasn't a robust way of buying digital music prior to the iTunes music store.
Macs-- You can buy any compatible software you want, but Apple has recently opened the Mac App Store, so they're interested in moving the Mac towards the iOS model. You can purchase, download or stream any compatible media, but that basically entails using a browser or purchasing/renting optical media. Again, the iTunes store is clearly Apple's preferred media delivery system.
iOS devices-- App Store for apps, similar to iPod for media. Same as Mac for dl or streaming media, sans Flash.
For Macs and iOS devices, "content" is mostly about applications with media being an enhancement. For the iPod, it's all content, with close coupling to the iTunes Store.
So what about television? All content, with no way to privilege iTunes. Nobody wants a TV that's mostly an iTunes portal. They want cable, broadcast, connected optical devices, on demand services and streaming services.
Apple has never made anything like that, a device that's primarily a client for content that isn't served by Apple. That's why I think they never will-- 95% of what a TV does has nothing to do with Apple, and there's no way for Apple to change that. They can't bring the iTunes store model to cable or broadcast TV, not unless the content providers do an abrupt about face and allow vastly more access than they are now.
Baring that, a television is deeply antithetical to how Apple does business.
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?
...or that broadcast television is dead and watching tv shows online is so much better... or that DVR capability conflicts with iTunes sales.
It sounds like that even if Apple does make a TV with an AppleTV inside, there will still be input switching for Blu-ray players, cable boxes, DVRs and any other input devices one might attach. I don’t see the gain here for Apple.
I notice most of the new Blu-Ray players, even though they're not recorders, have an HDMI input, so you can run one cable from your cable box, through your Blu-Ray player, and into the same input on your TV. When the player's off, the signal just feeds through. (Just like the Bad Old Days—coax to VCR to TV.) I don't know why they couldn't have done something similar with DVD players—it would have saved a lot of aggravation.