There is no way I would buy an Apple television. I already have a perfectly good monitor. If Apple wants me to buy its TV offerings, they will have to be devices that plug into what I've already got. They have the right idea with the current Apple TV. I don't want to spend an extra $1500+ to get a new screen that may or may not be better than what I have, then find a couple years down the line that there is this great new upgrade that comes with its own new $1500+ monitor.
Apple has really raised the bar on multi-touch user interfaces. Microsoft has the Surface, but it's expensive and aimed at developers rather than as a consumer product.
- Jasen.
The Microsoft "Surface"???? Never heard of it till now. Aside from the XBOX I've always said Microsoft couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag.... But the surface does seem to be much more than just a large touch screen tablet or PC. I watched the MS video and another video on Viddler. WOW! This is so unlike Microsoft. It's what I'd expect to see in a SciFi movie. Not only is it a leap in technology, but holy cow Batman... it comes from Microsoft.
That’s at least something new besides “Apple will make a TV and it’ll be the most awesomest thing ever”-like comments, but fails to address 1) how this will happen, 2) how you would then access cable/sat and/or DVR or if these are now non-entities moving forward, and 3) why do these deals have to be added to an HDTV and can’t be added to a much cheaper AppleTV that Apple can update annually and be usable on their current TVs?
PS: I’m not in any way against Apple making a TV what I’m against is desire getting in the way of any logical or rational reasons as to why Apple would make a TV. Not liking some other brand name for electronics in your HEC is a not valid reason! Thinking Apple can do anything because they are Apple is not a valid reason! Thinking that it would impress your friends is not a valid reason!
You're right, of course. All the 'arguments' given by posters here for why Apple would make an Apple TV (display, that is, not the current 'hobby' product) fall well short of market reality. I am a bit surprised, having expected more and better reason from the regulars here. (Though some did manage to stay out of the 'anything Apple does succeeds' trap.)
Someone(s) have already given most of my answers, but I'll add:
Queuing up for a bailout package at the EU headquarters.
As for my comments below, they're not directly about an Apple TV, but they're factors that deserve consideration in Apple's thought process about how to become a major factor "in the Living Room" (and bedroom and back of the mini-van and....). Which I don't think could be accomplished with any one or two TV models with rapidly obselescing processors, but then, whadda I know (except more than the next quoted post)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
Rubbish.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player). Pages is a "nice" program, but it doesn't round-trip the world standard DOC and DOCX files worth a damn (and won't even save them as a native format). Apple is a peninsula, not an island, always connected to important partners, whether they're "co-opetition" partners like MS and Adobe or other types as noted below.
For example, the legions of small ISV's who've eschewed the much larger Win user base to make the thousands of delightful programs and utilities that leverage the potential of OS X. And others like the Mozilla and Chrome browsers (I can't believe Safari still - unless I've missed it - doesn't save sessions with complete tab histories).
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days? Its two major acquisitions leading to the A5 are, I'm pretty sure, fabless. As far as I know, Apple no longer has a "Woz in the garage" building computers, iPods, iPads, ATV's, monitors or phones. Nor their components. (Tho' one exception I can think of in light of the Japanese disaster is that Apple Japan apparently does make batteries, so there may be others - but not much of the total.)
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners. And cableco's are showing interest in being part of the phenomenon (via iPad apps), even as some of their own content partners balk.
6. And there are more interdependency bullet points I could make, but the point's already clear. So here's my two cents on Apple "making" TV's:
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
And all they need for that is a port and a modicum of handshaking software in the sets (if they need that). They probably already have an ATV 3 nearly ready, and with a reworking of the MacMini could offer a range of add-on boxes, some of which could also replace DVR's and offer a range of gaming experiences. Which millions would buy and millions would upgrade every year or two.
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready. And that box could have a snap-in iOS hardware module which could be upgraded along with the boxes connecting to all the other TV's, so that Apple could make another $99 to $399 upgrade sale for those TV's as A6's, 7's etc. come out.
PS: Someone already answered this, but if anyone missed the answer, it should be hammered home that Jobs did NOT say PC's are dead. He said they're becoming the "trucks" of the industry. And trucks are still a great business to be in, especially when yours are the best selling and most profitable.
They don't have to dump their old tv. People don't dump their old iMacs yet they continue to upgrade. Maybe I put the old 42" on the patio or in the bedroom and the new 50" in the living room, den or family room.
Listen to yourself. You've got people buying EXTRA TVs, instead of replacements. In this economy.
Comparing this to computer upgrades make just as little sense. People upgrade their computers because the old ones no longer do what they need. Sure, older models often get passed on to children or whatever, but most of them gather dust and eventually go in the trash.
TVs rarely go 'obsolete'. Color obsoleted B&W, HDTV obsoleted the tubes. Bigger screens (at the right price) also generally have provided a reason to upgrade. But aside from breakage, those are the main reasons people replace their TVs. You are, I notice, avoiding the heart of the matter: What is it about Apple TV that will obsolete HDTV? What is so compelling about this theoretical product that a consumer cannot get with his existing HDTV and an add-on box?
I keep asking, and I keep getting zero answers. Just insistence that 'you gotta believe' or some such rubbish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serkol
Apple can add such unique features that other companies would have problem adding:
- 4k resolution: four times HDTV (double horizontal and vertical resolution) = "retina TV". This is would be very epensive for other companies, but Apple can leverage their huge volumes (Macs + TVs)....
- integration with iOS devices, Macs and future Apple online services.
These 'solutions' are beyond idiotic.
1) You cannot get a 'retina' display at a size bigger than an iPhone AT ANY PRICE. They do not exist. Idiot. (Or, you know, whatever's worse than 'idiot'.)
2) You can integrate your TV with iOS devices NOW. Apple doesn't have to build some sort of TV for this to happen.
i'm quite sure they managed to disrupt the cell phone market with a $600 no-subsidy product.
I'm quite sure they dropped the price heavily within a month, refunded the difference to early buyers then within 12 months dropped it to $199. Then a year later offered a $99 version. Meanwhile globally it is often sold at $0 and not $199 on 2yr contract cycles.
It would've disrupting nothing if it was still only available at $600.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player). Pages is a "nice" program, but it doesn't round-trip the world standard DOC and DOCX files worth a damn (and won't even save them as a native format). Apple is a peninsula, not an island, always connected to important partners, whether they're "co-opetition" partners like MS and Adobe or other types as noted below.
For example, the legions of small ISV's who've eschewed the much larger Win user base to make the thousands of delightful programs and utilities that leverage the potential of OS X. And others like the Mozilla and Chrome browsers (I can't believe Safari still - unless I've missed it - doesn't save sessions with complete tab histories).
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days? Its two major acquisitions leading to the A5 are, I'm pretty sure, fabless. As far as I know, Apple no longer has a "Woz in the garage" building computers, iPods, iPads, ATV's, monitors or phones. Nor their components. (Tho' one exception I can think of in light of the Japanese disaster is that Apple Japan apparently does make batteries, so there may be others - but not much of the total.)
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners. And cableco's are showing interest in being part of the phenomenon (via iPad apps), even as some of their own content partners balk.
6. And there are more interdependency bullet points I could make, but the point's already clear. So here's my two cents on Apple "making" TV's:
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
And all they need for that is a port and a modicum of handshaking software in the sets (if they need that). They probably already have an ATV 3 nearly ready, and with a reworking of the MacMini could offer a range of add-on boxes, some of which could also replace DVR's and offer a range of gaming experiences. Which millions would buy and millions would upgrade every year or two.
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready. And that box could have a snap-in iOS hardware module which could be upgraded along with the boxes connecting to all the other TV's, so that Apple could make another $99 to $399 upgrade sale for those TV's as A6's, 7's etc. come out.
PS: Someone already answered this, but if anyone missed the answer, it should be hammered home that Jobs did NOT say PC's are dead. He said they're becoming the "trucks" of the industry. And trucks are still a great business to be in, especially when yours are the best selling and most profitable.
Excellent! A very thoughtfult response. In addition to what solipsism and a few others have written, it makes the argument against an Apple-branded standalone HDTV even more clear. There does seem to be much better ways for Apple to get their piece of the TV market. Thanks for your well-grounded "no-spin" post.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player).
I cannot see the correlation between Mac market share having to directly do with Photoshop and MS Office. When Photoshop and MS Office can be used on a wide variety of computers.
Quote:
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
That is the point of the iTunes ecosystem.
Quote:
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
The wording of this question is confusing? Are you asking what percentage of the apps are driving the success of iOS? Or what percentage of iOS apps made by Apple drive the success of iOS?
Quote:
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days?
Can you name an American computer company that actually physically manufactures its own computers?
You expecting Apple do build and run its own manufacturing facilities when no one else does?
Quote:
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners.
What other mobile phone manufacturer doesn't need all of the world wide wireless partners?
You expect Apple to build and maintain a world wide wireless communications network when no one else does?
Quote:
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
Apple is primarily a hardware company that creates its own software, software development platform and content distribution services to support its hardware.
Quote:
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
Traditional broadcast and cable companies are all fighting to maintain that their business models and profits are not upset by a newer distribution model that they cannot directly control.
Quote:
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready.
If Apple were to offer its own television Apple would want to offer its own unique content service. Apple would not collude with traditional broadcasters or cable television.
The majority of these entities would not agree to cooperate with Apple in doing anything radically different from what is already being done.
Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:
1. Think of it more as a computer than a TV set. It will be multifunction in the designed and targeted ways Apple likes to add functionality. Emphasis on Facetime, since building in a camera to the panel in the right spot is important to the experience. Emphasis on apps and a new platform for app development. iTunes integration is obviously a big deal. It's a television set and a computer. For some people this could potentially be their only PC, just like any other iOS device.
2. Remote control will be a flat glass surface with either 0 or 1 buttons. You can also use your other iOS device for the remote control we've gotten used to with the Apple TV set top. I bet they'll have some slick voice control worked out as well. They will not use motion control, they have nothing invested in this and it's not their way to go all minority report on us. Let Microsoft flail around with Kinect.
3. I expect 3 models (at most) and for them to not only standardize on one technology but pick the best one that makes sense for Apple. This I believe will be LED LCD.
LED LCD is arguably higher quality than competing options. Yes some prefer plasma, and I think in any rational debate either is possible. Except LED LCD has the edge on weight and thickness, and this is too important to Apple. Only LED sets can be 1/2" thick or less. Jobs and his team can easily make the argument that a 240hz LED LCD set represents the best possible quality out there (this is a bit bogus but the argument can be made, and I am a plasma owner).
Costs are higher on the high end of LED LCD sets and this will go well in the perceived value and charging a high premium.
I expect them to streamline/simplify the choices, make the options crystal clear. The innards and features will be identical between sets they will only vary by size and cost. If 3 models, they'll go with 40, 50 and 60 because these are easily grasped numbers and common sizes for TV panels. If only 2 models, they'll go with 47 and 60.
4. As with everything Apple has been doing, is doing and will do, the point of this beast is to basically replace another Windows PC. Every time someone buys an ipod touch, iphone, mac or ipad, they are taking away another potential WinPC sale. It's not clear to the average person that this is what they're up to, but people have budgets and there is a reasonable limit to computer gear for most people. Once people scratch that itch, they may realize they don't need a WinPC... for anything.
5. Cost is anyone's guess really. TV prices today are a huge moving target and can shift dramatically within 6 months. Will they take the iphone gen1 route and charge a premium? Will they take the iPad route and offer people a deal for the money? Probably depend on how important it is for them to sell quantity.
6. It will not be 3D. There's no appreciable content for it, won't be anytime soon, and the technology is premature (some would say stillborn). Someday when its auto-stereoscopic and the content exists, sure. But not today or anytime in the next 2-3 years.
7. There will be one resolution, 1080p. By the time this ships, no other resolution will matter. Apple will also upgrade all iTunes content they can to 1080p at the same time (if you're wondering when THAT will happen, now you know).
8. It will not be for everyone, and if you're about to criticize my post out of some kind of nerd-rage self interest, it's not for you. I'm right, you're wrong, bookmark it.
Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:
[…]
I think that is where the fallacy lies.
Why is it the “TV” and the entire TV center that Apple needs to enter?
How does it benefit the use to merely have the AppleTV included to an HDTV but not have the cable/sat and/or DVR setup included, thus requiring switching inputs to access?
Is this Apple branded TV going to ignore these popular methods for accessing content?
What leverage does Apple have to force the networks to bypass their vast, guaranteed profits from local affiliates and cable/sat providers?
Why not keep it separate until the entire system can be made into a device?
Why not keep it separate so they can get more sales from a relatively low priced AppleTV that can be updated and repurchased frequently to allow for faster and better games and apps?
Why not partner with multiple TV vendors to allow an integrated AppleTVs with multiple sizes ranging from the smallest and largest, not un-similiar to what Apple did with the iPhone instead of creating their own MNO or MVNO.
PS: Why has no one considered the added complexity of a camera on an HDTV compared to the typical stationary camera on a Mac or IDevice? The distance and location of a TV from the viewer’s face is more multifarious perhaps requiring a zoom and/or directional motor for specific placement.
Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:
Apple would want to build a platform that it directly controls. Apple would want to build its own content distribution infrastructure and not follow the standard cable/broadcast model of distribution.
Television studios have been fighting everyone who makes any attempt to deviate from the current cable/broadcast model of distribution.
Steve Jobs himself has complained about the television business model and Apple's trouble with their vision for AppleTV and is the reason he called it a hobby.
Quote:
4. As with everything Apple has been doing, is doing and will do, the point of this beast is to basically replace another Windows PC. Every time someone buys an ipod touch, iphone, mac or ipad, they are taking away another potential WinPC sale. It's not clear to the average person that this is what they're up to, but people have budgets and there is a reasonable limit to computer gear for most people. Once people scratch that itch, they may realize they don't need a WinPC... for anything.
A TV is largely a passive device for viewing audio/video. I don't believe very many people have any desire for their television to become a computer.
" Sony Corp. (6758.TO) said Thursday its net profit in the October to December period fell 8.6% from a year earlier, weighed by the strong yen and thin margins in its television business.
"
Now, do you want to revise your assumption on competitor's baseline of 10% profit margin?
P.S. As a group, Sony's Revenue slipped 1.4% from a year earlier to Y2.206 trillion, while operating profit dropped 5.9% to Y137.5 billion. So that's about 6%. If TV business was making 10%, you think Sony would single it out as "thin margins"?
PS2: Your number on Apple's profit margin is also wrong. Their gross margin is 40%, operating margin is around 28%. Their iPhone is generating 60% gross margin, while iPad generates nearly 40%. The perspective changes dramatically when you have the right numbers, doesn't it.
You really should look up a dictionary or something, to understand what the phrase 'profit margin' means. Until then, it may be a good idea to try and not spout financial wisdom.
@solipsism... I think REC is more right than he is wrong. Both of you make sense though. However, IMO, I think Apple is really after an Interactive pseudo-TV experience. TV content would not be the main selling point.
Game playing with friends or others (maybe mobileMe users), all sorts of dedicated Apps, and Facetime as a social/family network and or business conferencing, projector etc. All connect to the Apple's cloud and ecosystem. Put this together with Apple's software expertise and it would be hard to beat. It would reinvent TV "usage" without fighting the TV/Movie Studios. But they'll soon come running to Apple for a piece of the action. I bet TWC and Cablevision (if they win their lawsuits) are just waiting for Apple to make its move at the focal point of the living room.
You have to acknowledge why these efforts are not very successful to understand what Apple would need to do to gain success. Beginning with the fact that few people desire to have Facebook and Twitter on their television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
Game playing with friends or others (maybe mobileMe users), all sorts of dedicated Apps, and Facetime as a social/family network and or business conferencing, projector etc. All connect to the Apple's cloud and ecosystem. Put this together with Apple's software expertise and it would be hard to beat. It would reinvent TV "usage" without fighting the TV/Movie Studios. But they'll soon come running to Apple for a piece of the action. I bet TWC and Cablevision (if they win their lawsuits) are just waiting for Apple to make its move at the focal point of the living room.
For Apple, there is almost as much profit in the AppleTV as there is in your average 42" LCD TV.
why in gods name would Apple, who has eschewed commodity products continuously, enter into a market who's margins are already thing and getting thinner?
Apple will some day release a 30+ or even 40+ inch iMac. But it will do so, because the iMac draws a premium [I paid over $2k for mine as an example].
People, in their right minds, won't pay $2000 for a 42" TV with embedded AppleTV. Not when a 42" TV costs you about $800 or less. And for Larger TV margins are plummeting because they are a commodity.
I own an AppleTV. At $99, it is a nice toy. I wish it did more, but it doesn't.
Apple would functionally give the TV screen away to realize the same net revenue it gets by selling you a $99 entertainment puck. Let it die.
Comments
Came here to say this.
Apple has really raised the bar on multi-touch user interfaces. Microsoft has the Surface, but it's expensive and aimed at developers rather than as a consumer product.
- Jasen.
The Microsoft "Surface"???? Never heard of it till now.
Is it snowing in Hell?
That’s at least something new besides “Apple will make a TV and it’ll be the most awesomest thing ever”-like comments, but fails to address 1) how this will happen, 2) how you would then access cable/sat and/or DVR or if these are now non-entities moving forward, and 3) why do these deals have to be added to an HDTV and can’t be added to a much cheaper AppleTV that Apple can update annually and be usable on their current TVs?
PS: I’m not in any way against Apple making a TV what I’m against is desire getting in the way of any logical or rational reasons as to why Apple would make a TV. Not liking some other brand name for electronics in your HEC is a not valid reason! Thinking Apple can do anything because they are Apple is not a valid reason! Thinking that it would impress your friends is not a valid reason!
You're right, of course. All the 'arguments' given by posters here for why Apple would make an Apple TV (display, that is, not the current 'hobby' product) fall well short of market reality. I am a bit surprised, having expected more and better reason from the regulars here. (Though some did manage to stay out of the 'anything Apple does succeeds' trap.)
Where's Ireland?
Someone(s) have already given most of my answers, but I'll add:
Queuing up for a bailout package at the EU headquarters.
As for my comments below, they're not directly about an Apple TV, but they're factors that deserve consideration in Apple's thought process about how to become a major factor "in the Living Room" (and bedroom and back of the mini-van and....). Which I don't think could be accomplished with any one or two TV models with rapidly obselescing processors, but then, whadda I know (except more than the next quoted post)?
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
Rubbish.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player). Pages is a "nice" program, but it doesn't round-trip the world standard DOC and DOCX files worth a damn (and won't even save them as a native format). Apple is a peninsula, not an island, always connected to important partners, whether they're "co-opetition" partners like MS and Adobe or other types as noted below.
For example, the legions of small ISV's who've eschewed the much larger Win user base to make the thousands of delightful programs and utilities that leverage the potential of OS X. And others like the Mozilla and Chrome browsers (I can't believe Safari still - unless I've missed it - doesn't save sessions with complete tab histories).
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days? Its two major acquisitions leading to the A5 are, I'm pretty sure, fabless. As far as I know, Apple no longer has a "Woz in the garage" building computers, iPods, iPads, ATV's, monitors or phones. Nor their components. (Tho' one exception I can think of in light of the Japanese disaster is that Apple Japan apparently does make batteries, so there may be others - but not much of the total.)
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners. And cableco's are showing interest in being part of the phenomenon (via iPad apps), even as some of their own content partners balk.
6. And there are more interdependency bullet points I could make, but the point's already clear. So here's my two cents on Apple "making" TV's:
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
And all they need for that is a port and a modicum of handshaking software in the sets (if they need that). They probably already have an ATV 3 nearly ready, and with a reworking of the MacMini could offer a range of add-on boxes, some of which could also replace DVR's and offer a range of gaming experiences. Which millions would buy and millions would upgrade every year or two.
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready. And that box could have a snap-in iOS hardware module which could be upgraded along with the boxes connecting to all the other TV's, so that Apple could make another $99 to $399 upgrade sale for those TV's as A6's, 7's etc. come out.
PS: Someone already answered this, but if anyone missed the answer, it should be hammered home that Jobs did NOT say PC's are dead. He said they're becoming the "trucks" of the industry. And trucks are still a great business to be in, especially when yours are the best selling and most profitable.
They don't have to dump their old tv. People don't dump their old iMacs yet they continue to upgrade. Maybe I put the old 42" on the patio or in the bedroom and the new 50" in the living room, den or family room.
Listen to yourself. You've got people buying EXTRA TVs, instead of replacements. In this economy.
Comparing this to computer upgrades make just as little sense. People upgrade their computers because the old ones no longer do what they need. Sure, older models often get passed on to children or whatever, but most of them gather dust and eventually go in the trash.
TVs rarely go 'obsolete'. Color obsoleted B&W, HDTV obsoleted the tubes. Bigger screens (at the right price) also generally have provided a reason to upgrade. But aside from breakage, those are the main reasons people replace their TVs. You are, I notice, avoiding the heart of the matter: What is it about Apple TV that will obsolete HDTV? What is so compelling about this theoretical product that a consumer cannot get with his existing HDTV and an add-on box?
I keep asking, and I keep getting zero answers. Just insistence that 'you gotta believe' or some such rubbish.
Apple can add such unique features that other companies would have problem adding:
- 4k resolution: four times HDTV (double horizontal and vertical resolution) = "retina TV". This is would be very epensive for other companies, but Apple can leverage their huge volumes (Macs + TVs)....
- integration with iOS devices, Macs and future Apple online services.
These 'solutions' are beyond idiotic.
1) You cannot get a 'retina' display at a size bigger than an iPhone AT ANY PRICE. They do not exist. Idiot. (Or, you know, whatever's worse than 'idiot'.)
2) You can integrate your TV with iOS devices NOW. Apple doesn't have to build some sort of TV for this to happen.
Geeeeez.
i'm quite sure they managed to disrupt the cell phone market with a $600 no-subsidy product.
I'm quite sure they dropped the price heavily within a month, refunded the difference to early buyers then within 12 months dropped it to $199. Then a year later offered a $99 version. Meanwhile globally it is often sold at $0 and not $199 on 2yr contract cycles.
It would've disrupting nothing if it was still only available at $600.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player). Pages is a "nice" program, but it doesn't round-trip the world standard DOC and DOCX files worth a damn (and won't even save them as a native format). Apple is a peninsula, not an island, always connected to important partners, whether they're "co-opetition" partners like MS and Adobe or other types as noted below.
For example, the legions of small ISV's who've eschewed the much larger Win user base to make the thousands of delightful programs and utilities that leverage the potential of OS X. And others like the Mozilla and Chrome browsers (I can't believe Safari still - unless I've missed it - doesn't save sessions with complete tab histories).
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days? Its two major acquisitions leading to the A5 are, I'm pretty sure, fabless. As far as I know, Apple no longer has a "Woz in the garage" building computers, iPods, iPads, ATV's, monitors or phones. Nor their components. (Tho' one exception I can think of in light of the Japanese disaster is that Apple Japan apparently does make batteries, so there may be others - but not much of the total.)
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners. And cableco's are showing interest in being part of the phenomenon (via iPad apps), even as some of their own content partners balk.
6. And there are more interdependency bullet points I could make, but the point's already clear. So here's my two cents on Apple "making" TV's:
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
And all they need for that is a port and a modicum of handshaking software in the sets (if they need that). They probably already have an ATV 3 nearly ready, and with a reworking of the MacMini could offer a range of add-on boxes, some of which could also replace DVR's and offer a range of gaming experiences. Which millions would buy and millions would upgrade every year or two.
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready. And that box could have a snap-in iOS hardware module which could be upgraded along with the boxes connecting to all the other TV's, so that Apple could make another $99 to $399 upgrade sale for those TV's as A6's, 7's etc. come out.
PS: Someone already answered this, but if anyone missed the answer, it should be hammered home that Jobs did NOT say PC's are dead. He said they're becoming the "trucks" of the industry. And trucks are still a great business to be in, especially when yours are the best selling and most profitable.
Excellent! A very thoughtfult response. In addition to what solipsism and a few others have written, it makes the argument against an Apple-branded standalone HDTV even more clear. There does seem to be much better ways for Apple to get their piece of the TV market. Thanks for your well-grounded "no-spin" post.
1. Photoshop and others helped make the Mac a success, and without MS Office (love it or hate it or both) there's no way Apple would now have 90% of the $1000+ PC market (and might not have survived as a viable player).
I cannot see the correlation between Mac market share having to directly do with Photoshop and MS Office. When Photoshop and MS Office can be used on a wide variety of computers.
2. Without all content on the iTunes Store where would the iPod (and all its follow-ons) be?
That is the point of the iTunes ecosystem.
3. And what percentage of the apps driving the success of iOS does Apple make?
The wording of this question is confusing? Are you asking what percentage of the apps are driving the success of iOS? Or what percentage of iOS apps made by Apple drive the success of iOS?
4. Speaking of making, what does Apple physically manufacture itself these days?
Can you name an American computer company that actually physically manufactures its own computers?
You expecting Apple do build and run its own manufacturing facilities when no one else does?
5. And most of them may be awful companies, but Apple certainly "needs" all of its world-wide cellco partners.
What other mobile phone manufacturer doesn't need all of the world wide wireless partners?
You expect Apple to build and maintain a world wide wireless communications network when no one else does?
Apple is now a software, device design, marketing, services and "experience delivery" firm. Increasingly targeted at emerging and mass markets. So I would think they're aiming at bringing their whole "ecosystem" to the majority of (yes, largely commoditized) TV screens rather than a niche set or two. At least at first.
Apple is primarily a hardware company that creates its own software, software development platform and content distribution services to support its hardware.
Meanwhile the landscape of traditional cable channels and net-delivered TV has a bunch of sorting out to do, which such devices would be in a catbird seat to bridge.
Traditional broadcast and cable companies are all fighting to maintain that their business models and profits are not upset by a newer distribution model that they cannot directly control.
And once that's in place, if they want to offer their "own" TV which does all that and adds a "one more thing" flourish or two, the marketplace would be primed and ready.
If Apple were to offer its own television Apple would want to offer its own unique content service. Apple would not collude with traditional broadcasters or cable television.
The majority of these entities would not agree to cooperate with Apple in doing anything radically different from what is already being done.
With a big glossy reflective screen...oh boy!
There smaller model could second as a bedroom mirror!
Hopefully they'll release a plasma.
Nope... way too thick for an Apple design
... Apple will never make a television set.
No they won't make a TV. They'll make a SmartTV and they'll call it AppleTVc (the "c" for cloud)
1. Think of it more as a computer than a TV set. It will be multifunction in the designed and targeted ways Apple likes to add functionality. Emphasis on Facetime, since building in a camera to the panel in the right spot is important to the experience. Emphasis on apps and a new platform for app development. iTunes integration is obviously a big deal. It's a television set and a computer. For some people this could potentially be their only PC, just like any other iOS device.
2. Remote control will be a flat glass surface with either 0 or 1 buttons. You can also use your other iOS device for the remote control we've gotten used to with the Apple TV set top. I bet they'll have some slick voice control worked out as well. They will not use motion control, they have nothing invested in this and it's not their way to go all minority report on us. Let Microsoft flail around with Kinect.
3. I expect 3 models (at most) and for them to not only standardize on one technology but pick the best one that makes sense for Apple. This I believe will be LED LCD.4. As with everything Apple has been doing, is doing and will do, the point of this beast is to basically replace another Windows PC. Every time someone buys an ipod touch, iphone, mac or ipad, they are taking away another potential WinPC sale. It's not clear to the average person that this is what they're up to, but people have budgets and there is a reasonable limit to computer gear for most people. Once people scratch that itch, they may realize they don't need a WinPC... for anything.
5. Cost is anyone's guess really. TV prices today are a huge moving target and can shift dramatically within 6 months. Will they take the iphone gen1 route and charge a premium? Will they take the iPad route and offer people a deal for the money? Probably depend on how important it is for them to sell quantity.
6. It will not be 3D. There's no appreciable content for it, won't be anytime soon, and the technology is premature (some would say stillborn). Someday when its auto-stereoscopic and the content exists, sure. But not today or anytime in the next 2-3 years.
7. There will be one resolution, 1080p. By the time this ships, no other resolution will matter. Apple will also upgrade all iTunes content they can to 1080p at the same time (if you're wondering when THAT will happen, now you know).
8. It will not be for everyone, and if you're about to criticize my post out of some kind of nerd-rage self interest, it's not for you. I'm right, you're wrong, bookmark it.
Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:
[…]
I think that is where the fallacy lies.
- Why is it the “TV” and the entire TV center that Apple needs to enter?
- How does it benefit the use to merely have the AppleTV included to an HDTV but not have the cable/sat and/or DVR setup included, thus requiring switching inputs to access?
- Is this Apple branded TV going to ignore these popular methods for accessing content?
- What leverage does Apple have to force the networks to bypass their vast, guaranteed profits from local affiliates and cable/sat providers?
- Why not keep it separate until the entire system can be made into a device?
- Why not keep it separate so they can get more sales from a relatively low priced AppleTV that can be updated and repurchased frequently to allow for faster and better games and apps?
- Why not partner with multiple TV vendors to allow an integrated AppleTVs with multiple sizes ranging from the smallest and largest, not un-similiar to what Apple did with the iPhone instead of creating their own MNO or MVNO.
PS: Why has no one considered the added complexity of a camera on an HDTV compared to the typical stationary camera on a Mac or IDevice? The distance and location of a TV from the viewer’s face is more multifarious perhaps requiring a zoom and/or directional motor for specific placement.Has to be the worst article in a while, Apple will never make a television set.
They already make Apple TV and some of the best screens in the industry. So what's so crazy about them combining the two?
That alone isn?t a reason.
Apple is doing this, take my word for it. TV sets are one of the last mass market electronic devices that have yet to be reinvented and improved the Apple way. All of Apple's service and experience have been building up to this product. I can make some pretty good guesses on the shape and form of an Apple TV:
Apple would want to build a platform that it directly controls. Apple would want to build its own content distribution infrastructure and not follow the standard cable/broadcast model of distribution.
Television studios have been fighting everyone who makes any attempt to deviate from the current cable/broadcast model of distribution.
Steve Jobs himself has complained about the television business model and Apple's trouble with their vision for AppleTV and is the reason he called it a hobby.
4. As with everything Apple has been doing, is doing and will do, the point of this beast is to basically replace another Windows PC. Every time someone buys an ipod touch, iphone, mac or ipad, they are taking away another potential WinPC sale. It's not clear to the average person that this is what they're up to, but people have budgets and there is a reasonable limit to computer gear for most people. Once people scratch that itch, they may realize they don't need a WinPC... for anything.
A TV is largely a passive device for viewing audio/video. I don't believe very many people have any desire for their television to become a computer.
" Sony Corp. (6758.TO) said Thursday its net profit in the October to December period fell 8.6% from a year earlier, weighed by the strong yen and thin margins in its television business.
"
Now, do you want to revise your assumption on competitor's baseline of 10% profit margin?
P.S. As a group, Sony's Revenue slipped 1.4% from a year earlier to Y2.206 trillion, while operating profit dropped 5.9% to Y137.5 billion. So that's about 6%. If TV business was making 10%, you think Sony would single it out as "thin margins"?
PS2: Your number on Apple's profit margin is also wrong. Their gross margin is 40%, operating margin is around 28%. Their iPhone is generating 60% gross margin, while iPad generates nearly 40%. The perspective changes dramatically when you have the right numbers, doesn't it.
You really should look up a dictionary or something, to understand what the phrase 'profit margin' means. Until then, it may be a good idea to try and not spout financial wisdom.
Game playing with friends or others (maybe mobileMe users), all sorts of dedicated Apps, and Facetime as a social/family network and or business conferencing, projector etc. All connect to the Apple's cloud and ecosystem. Put this together with Apple's software expertise and it would be hard to beat. It would reinvent TV "usage" without fighting the TV/Movie Studios. But they'll soon come running to Apple for a piece of the action. I bet TWC and Cablevision (if they win their lawsuits) are just waiting for Apple to make its move at the focal point of the living room.
Google TV
Samsung Internet Television
Sony/Google TV
You have to acknowledge why these efforts are not very successful to understand what Apple would need to do to gain success. Beginning with the fact that few people desire to have Facebook and Twitter on their television.
Game playing with friends or others (maybe mobileMe users), all sorts of dedicated Apps, and Facetime as a social/family network and or business conferencing, projector etc. All connect to the Apple's cloud and ecosystem. Put this together with Apple's software expertise and it would be hard to beat. It would reinvent TV "usage" without fighting the TV/Movie Studios. But they'll soon come running to Apple for a piece of the action. I bet TWC and Cablevision (if they win their lawsuits) are just waiting for Apple to make its move at the focal point of the living room.
For Apple, there is almost as much profit in the AppleTV as there is in your average 42" LCD TV.
why in gods name would Apple, who has eschewed commodity products continuously, enter into a market who's margins are already thing and getting thinner?
Apple will some day release a 30+ or even 40+ inch iMac. But it will do so, because the iMac draws a premium [I paid over $2k for mine as an example].
People, in their right minds, won't pay $2000 for a 42" TV with embedded AppleTV. Not when a 42" TV costs you about $800 or less. And for Larger TV margins are plummeting because they are a commodity.
I own an AppleTV. At $99, it is a nice toy. I wish it did more, but it doesn't.
Apple would functionally give the TV screen away to realize the same net revenue it gets by selling you a $99 entertainment puck. Let it die.