I could agree with this if the television industry were embracing the internet.
What they are mostly doing are trying some web experiments. Once these experiments begin to have any degree success. Out of fear they stifle the content flow by limiting what shows are available or placing new content behind unpopular pay walls.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF
Cable/sat tuners are done. They're old news and although people still buy and use them if we look several years into the future we can see a huge shift happening. Whereas currently the tuner is the center of the home theatre, in the future smart/connected TVs will be the center. Tuners will be relegated to peripheral status. They will be used occasionally instead of consistently. They represent they way things were done and are done, but not the way things will be done.
Sure people have failed trying to do the same things I've predicted. But if it can be done Apple has the Brand Loyalty within its ecosystem and the expertise to make it profitable to there hardware division.
That is what we are saying. The only way this could work is if television/movie studios allowed Apple to distribute content in the way Apple would want. They will not agree to that. There is no ecosystem.
Quote:
Like iTunes they don't have to make money on TVs.
The purpose of iTunes is to provide content and information management for all of Apple's consumer devices. How would a television accomplish this task?
Apple believes it makes more money indirectly from creating magic that people want. Consumers want stability, a trusted brand, and easy to use. TV are easy and popular, in part, because you just turn it on and it works. Even if Apple just made a cheap screen with a tuner, stick in local storage, and that AppleTV box to control everything including DVR, I heard of many who would jump at it. I know I would, and believe Apple will do it better than that and could absorb the margins with their economy of scale.
I believe you are right that Apple could make a television that some number of people would desire and want. I don't believe that at this point Apple could make a television and content platform that would really set them apart from everyone else. That is the type of television Apple would really want to create.
Quote:
Remember, many in business said "Nobody wants an ALL-In- Computer," but the iMac showed them wrong. I guess is Apple won't actually make a TV. Just a bigger more functional iPad.
When did they say this? The original iMac in 1998 is what saved Apple from its death spiral.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
And just like it?s longterm failed effort to get video rights ? which I think is why the original AppleTV didn?t take off right away ? due to the iTMS exceptional success, Apple coming in and trying to get a deal with networks might be harder than someone like Roku wanting access.
What I can?t figure out is why cable, sat and DVR are being excluded from any discussion about an AppleTV. I know these are used throughout the US.
What I can?t figure out is why people don?t want an AppleTV with an App Store that is updated yearly along with the iPods. In a couple years the performance could be beyond that of the Xbox 360. If you have an AppleTV built into your TV you aren?t going to get another TV at $1,999 every year just to play the newest games, but you might if it?s external. I buy an iPhone and iPad each year because they are cheap and small, but I won?t be buying a new TV every year just to get some better performance.
What I can?t figure out is why it would be impossible for Apple to work with vendors so they don?t have to build a TV but can have access to a huge market of users with a wide variety of TV types, sizes and models to fit everyone?s needs.
Remember, many in business said "Nobody wants an ALL-In- Computer," but the iMac showed them wrong. My guess is Apple won't actually make a TV. Just a much much bigger and more functional iPad that people will think is a TV and hang it on the wall.
Apple has been making AIOs since the Lisa in 1983 or first Mac in 1984. The first iMac wasn?t successful because it was an AIO.
From the tone of your post. It sounds as if your over all point is that Apple needs Photoshop and MS Office more than they need Apple.
Not at all. Apple arguably set the template for both companies. One copied many of its ideas and the other existed because of it. I'd really be surprised if we disagreed about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I think that misses the point that the Mac was the most organized platform to develop for when Word and Photoshop were originally launched.
True that as well.
Just for the historical record (and 'cos I think it's interesting), though, Photoshop's roots (1988) are entirely in the Mac, while MS's Word was first a Xenix (1983) program, then a DOS (also '83) product lagging behind WordPerfect for DOS ('80) - and rose to its current dominance once Word for Windows ('89) crushed WordPerfect's late to market ('92) Win version.
But it is true that MS shipped a Mac version (1984) long before their own Win version. And Word for Mac's sales beat Word for MS-DOS' for four years! I'd forgotten that. Thank you.
Word was largely developed under the guidance of a former Xerox PARC employee! Among other things, then, it was the first mouseable word processor even on a character based screen, and was developed with a GUI goal from the beginning. This made it relatively straightforward to port to the PARC-steeped Mac OS. There were also an Atari (!) version (based on the Mac version!) and versions for UNIX and OS/2. So a Win version of Word was held up until Windows 3.0, which was the first remotely usable and popular version of Win, and which only came out five years after the Mac. Making Word for Windows - with which it is now so closely identified - the LAST platform it was released on. Ha!! Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
As far as the money MS invested in Apple it was only a token gesture. Apple was holding over a billion in cash at the time.
Right again, except I'll say "symbolic" is a better description than "token." The twin announcements of development and cash had a big emotional impact on many groups: users, investors, developers, and more. It was huge in the press - Apple and mainstream media - at the time.
I think people forget (or don't know) just how close to the edge Apple was seen as being at its ebb tide. Again, another topic for another day, but they were in rough waters and losing Office would have been a huge PR blow, even with a billion in cash to burn. However, the fact no one had said Apple was about to lose Office only highlights it was the symbolism that mattered. The "vote of confidence" that they wouldn't stop development was strictly for publicity. Even tho' everyone knew MS was only doing so because they needed to keep Apple around for their own cynical reasons.
And since Apple's always been a far more interesting company by far than MS, the press wanted them to stick around too. A hundred mill or even half a bill - the story would've gotten the same play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Yeah I'm not sure why this point needed to be made.
To remember that pride goeth before a fall. There's more and more over-the-top "we are the kings of the world" rhetoric going on in these threads of late.
Apple needs to stay humble, hungry, visionary and on top of its game - and not make many unforced turnovers. That's all.
All you?re saying is they will succeed because they haven?t done it yet. That isn?t a business model. That isn?t a plan.
That's not what I would have expected from you. You've always been bigger than that.
What REX and I have been saying is Apple HAS been working to this goal in secrecy for a long time. And neither of us have proof they have, but I think I know Apple and probably REX does too. I know you do, that's why your position confuses me. If Apple entered this market at the end of this year (or next) it because they have been putting the necessary technology together for years.
This is thread is overly ridiculous. Sure, they aren?t required to make a profit, but to assume they would go to all this trouble just to lose money makes no sense.
Oh, and they had $1.1B in iTunes revenue last quarter. No idea of the profit but I have to assume there is a decent profit in there.
It's done all the time. I think they call it a lost leader. When iTunes started they lost money. They just paid out about $300 million rounded for SoundJam and brand to their liking. I would assume they still don't make much profit with the major share of that $1.1B going to the various studios, but their plan was to capture the MP3 player market. It was a means to an end for Apple. Anything else is gravy. They'll do again in the TV market but I suppose not as big as the iPod.
I could agree with this if the television industry were embracing the internet.
What they are mostly doing are trying some web experiments. Once these experiments begin to have any degree success. Out of fear they stifle the content flow by limiting what shows are available or placing new content behind unpopular pay walls.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
I'm not sure the television industry (i.e. content providers) is relevant to Apple's TV plans (if there are any). Apple know people will get the TV and or video content and rip it or DVR it to their personal library. Apple will effectively sell a library management system for you living room and at the same time make a ton of money on games, family apps, educational apps, and what ever developers innovate.
And Apple will sidestep the limiting factor of such tactics by broadcast networks and hollywood. Apple doesn't care where you get your movies and TV from. They make money on hardware & software systems in a closed ecosystem.
It's done all the time. I think they call it a lost leader.
FYI, the term is "loss leader." Means an item used by retailers to lure shoppers in the door where they'll hopefully also buy (or only buy) the higher markup items.
Around Black Friday, limited super-specials at 4 am are also called "doorbusters," 'cos they get people lined up - and as history has shown, crowds have been known to actually trample store employees when the doors are opened.
Along with iLife and more, iTunes and the App Store with their free podcasts, radio streams, iTunes U courses and apps, etc., and possibly lower margin on total goods sold than in other divisions is also - and perhaps more - an example of "giving away blades to sell razors." Tho' in Apple's case, they also make some income on many of the blades as well. Another retailing term for this which aptly fits Apple is providing a "value add."
This is what fundamentally what distinguishes Apple from, on the one hand, MS and Google and on the other, companies like Samsung and Motorola. The former have little branded hardware to speak of in their overall revenue stream (tho' MS has some decent assets in X-Box, Kinect and other peripherals). The latter are great hardware companies but both have little to show for their software efforts.
As Tenobell has pointed out in this thread, Apple is by far the best at using software (OS and apps) and now content (music, video, films, books, etc.) to sell elegantly engineered and closely aligned hardware. Doesn't make 'em invincible, but they've built an amazing enterprise on a timeless and basic premise. Which has been used "all the time" by businesses - but seldom this well on this scale.
PS: This model is another reason for a long overdue Apple rethink of MobileMe, sez me, by the way! Done right, I believe they stand to more than make up higher bandwidth costs with increased hardware sales. For another, a free basic MobileMe can also generate revenue. I started with a free 5GB SugarSync account and that company is now happily pocketing $150/yr from me for 250 GB. And Apple can do much more than syncing and storage in the cloud with a better leveraging of MobileMe (I still hate the name, btw) into its fabled whole ecosystem.
Which division of Apple, full circle, is not necessarily divorced from Apple's push into the final frontier of the living room. Which again, to me, points away from a few bulky TV's fighting for shelf space (too big a razor, too few blades) and more towards ways to turn many 10's of millions of other maker's TV's essentially into Apple terminals as I believe Solipsism is arguing. At which point, the market might then be primed and ripe for a "real Apple TV."
That is what we are saying. The only way this could work is if television/movie studios allowed Apple to distribute content in the way Apple would want. They will not agree to that. There is no ecosystem.
see my posted answer to you above
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The purpose of iTunes is to provide content and information management for all of Apple's consumer devices. How would a television accomplish this task?
As Steve Jobs has said (maybe indirectly), the center of his ecosystem will be the living room media center. It's the family gathering place for most families. The TV is front and center to this. Jobs in-visions that media center to be Apple branded and an Apple TV can bring it all together.
I believe you are right that Apple could make a television that some number of people would desire and want. I don't believe that at this point Apple could make a television and content platform that would really set them apart from everyone else. That is the type of television Apple would really want to create.
Obviously we disagree on this. And that's fine. What will set it apart is you'll plug it in connect it too the your internet/CableTV connection wirelessly or one cable, and everything you own that you have on your mac computer will just play and work seamlessly together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
When did they say this? The original iMac in 1998 is what saved Apple from its death spiral.
The WIndows PC industry has been saying it for years, ever since the first iMac, but when the ALuminum iMac came out those naysayers chocked on their words and ran to copy it!
What I can?t figure out is why people don?t want an AppleTV with an App Store that is updated yearly along with the iPods. In a couple years the performance could be beyond that of the Xbox 360. If you have an AppleTV built into your TV you aren?t going to get another TV at $1,999 every year just to play the newest games, but you might if it?s external.
Come on you know all about firmware upgrades. Even televisions have them. Some variant of iOS will undoubtedly be in control of an Apple TV and everything will be upgraded just like iOS devices are today. As for hardware upgrades, Apple could easy satisfy most of their user base by making it state of the art that will last a decade. Very few people need the latest greatest technology. The things the technology supports now is more than most people could imagine.
Apple’s been the exception because they have been exceptional. When the weren’t exceptional their offerings have failed to overtake a market so saying they will succeed because they are Apple is not any way accurate. They work hard to succeed and just like they say about knowing what not to include in their products, they also have a good track record of knowing what markets not to enter before they have a viable plan.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just taking the position that they can be exceptional in the TV market as well.
Quote:
It was Cingular and they were apparently not the first. If you what you say is true about Apple’s Midas touch in business then Verizon wouldn’t have turned them down.
AT&T = Cingular in my mind. Anyhow, Verizon turned down Apple not because they didn't have faith in Apple, but because Verizon had too much faith in themselves. It was bad management at Verizon that led to that snafu. And in both cases, neither of them got to see the iPhone before they made their decision.
Quote:
They accomplished this by knowing when and how to enter the market, not simply by entering the market. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise!
Again I don't disagree. I just think the TV market is ripe.
Quote:
Show us proof. I don’t see these appliances as being “done” in any way. Your plan means that I won’t be able to watch my HBO and Showtime original programming unless I rent/buy it from iTS or wait for Netflx to get the DVD/streaming rights.
If you're always waiting for proof that it happened you'll never be the one making it happen. Today's model doesn't determine tomorrow's possibilities. Yada yada yada.
BTW, Dish Networks acquisition of Blockbuster is a good example of the trend. They recognize that people don't want to install dishes and buy expensive PVRs anymore. Its a stupid acquisition, but it does at least give some evidence of the trend.
Oh and don't forget all the iPad apps from TV networks that allow you to watch recent episodes. And the death of Tivo. And the popularity of Hulu. And the TimeWarner iPad app. These are all little steps toward the eventuality that the route into people's living room won't be the traditional cable receiver that we know today.
Quote:
You’re not being futuristic, your just excited about the prospect of replacing a bunch of boxes for a single monitor in your living room.
Remember Steve Jobs mantra: The PC is dead. To a certain extent, that's true. Smartphones and tablets have come a long way. But TVs are going to be around forever. So why not build an Internet-enabled HDTV which can also serve all the functions of your computer through a cloud-based Mobile Me account?
The PC isn't dead and it won't be for a long time yet.
What Jobs called the "post PC era" isn't simply about people replacing their PCs with iPads and iPhones, it's about separating your digital life, that is all of the information you create (e.g. photos, home videos, documents etc) and all of the information you purchase (e.g. tv, movies etc) from your PC.
Another name might be the "cloud coalesced-computing era".
At the moment normal mainstream users create and purchase content and store it on their PC. They might then sync their iPad/iPhone or stream that content to their TV... but the PC is still the central hub that everything else revolves around.
In the "cloud coalesced-computing era" your content doesn't exist on one device, it lives everywhere. It may be stored in the cloud as well as being sync'd to the devices you own.
In that way all of the devices you own mesh together and form something of a united computing platform.
In a practical sense it means you could...
take a video on your camera and then go to your notebook and it's there ready to edit. start watching a movie on your TV then leave for school and keep watching the same movie on your iPad on the train
listen to a album on your iPod and then come home and continue listening on your stereo
edit a document a work then refer to it on your phone in a meeting
you get the point...
Microsoft have been talking about "three screens and the cloud" for a long long time, however I think it's going to end up being more like "5+ screens and the cloud" (PC\
otebook, smartphone, media tablet (or 2), TV and maybe even your car and lots of smaller screens like your camera, stereo, printer etc)
All that said I do agree with you about the TV. It's going to be a critical "screen" in the cloud computing platform and it's something that Apple need to attack.
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?
Snip..........
You've hit the nail on the head with these comments. There is no doubt that the entire TV industry needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century but the question is how to do it!
The best outcome would probably come from Apple acting like a cable provider by offering a iTunes movie/TV subscription allowing you to view content on any device you own. Whilst not impossible (Microsoft have managed something similar with Xbox in Australia) I think the networks would do everything they could to stop Apple from achieving this goal.
And it still leaves the problem of the TV, in which I can't see any perfect scenario.
Having the Apple TV as a separate box isn't the best user experience, especially when you factor in the extra functions outside of movie/tv watching like AirPlay.
The other option is to somehow integrate the Apple TV into the actual TV, which all have their own problems as well.
If Apple make the entire TV it's going to be a high-cost barrier to entry and people won't upgrade anywhere near as often.
If Apple license out Apple TV to other manufacturers they lose a lot of control over the product.
Maybe the best solution (but still not perfect!) would be if Apple created an industry standard for allowing the Apple TV to interface with, and control, 3rd party TV's.
Existing manufactures could continue to fight it out in the TV arena. Apple could still sell the Apple TV as a separate box that users could upgrade when required however would still get a better level of integration than they would with a totally separate box.
You?re talking ONE less cable and ONE less device that only takes up 4?x4?x1? just so you can have a nice UI for your monitor settings? How often are people jumping into their TVs settings anyway? The only common usage should be the Input and Volume, both of which are overlays, not internal menus.
Even just changing the inputs irritates me on many TVs, I always get the feeling that the TV manufacturers don't care about doing anything very well, slow and clunky. I don't use a TV's built-in speaker because they're almost always low quality (something that might benefit from an Apple entry), so the convenience of an integrated volume control is something I don't benefit from.
From the XFiles: Engadget has a few posters guessing what ix.Mac.MarketingName in the AppStorerefers to, with some saying it's AppleTV. God I hate reading Engadget comments. It'll take most of the morning to get the taste out of my mouth.
One crucial things that Apple is willing to do that pretty no much no other company on the planet has the guts to do. That is to kill a product at the height of its popularity for a new product that they believe will be even more popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Apple needs to stay humble, hungry, visionary and on top of its game - and not make many unforced turnovers. That's all.
Comments
What they are mostly doing are trying some web experiments. Once these experiments begin to have any degree success. Out of fear they stifle the content flow by limiting what shows are available or placing new content behind unpopular pay walls.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
Cable/sat tuners are done. They're old news and although people still buy and use them if we look several years into the future we can see a huge shift happening. Whereas currently the tuner is the center of the home theatre, in the future smart/connected TVs will be the center. Tuners will be relegated to peripheral status. They will be used occasionally instead of consistently. They represent they way things were done and are done, but not the way things will be done.
Sure people have failed trying to do the same things I've predicted. But if it can be done Apple has the Brand Loyalty within its ecosystem and the expertise to make it profitable to there hardware division.
That is what we are saying. The only way this could work is if television/movie studios allowed Apple to distribute content in the way Apple would want. They will not agree to that. There is no ecosystem.
Like iTunes they don't have to make money on TVs.
The purpose of iTunes is to provide content and information management for all of Apple's consumer devices. How would a television accomplish this task?
Apple believes it makes more money indirectly from creating magic that people want. Consumers want stability, a trusted brand, and easy to use. TV are easy and popular, in part, because you just turn it on and it works. Even if Apple just made a cheap screen with a tuner, stick in local storage, and that AppleTV box to control everything including DVR, I heard of many who would jump at it. I know I would, and believe Apple will do it better than that and could absorb the margins with their economy of scale.
I believe you are right that Apple could make a television that some number of people would desire and want. I don't believe that at this point Apple could make a television and content platform that would really set them apart from everyone else. That is the type of television Apple would really want to create.
Remember, many in business said "Nobody wants an ALL-In- Computer," but the iMac showed them wrong. I guess is Apple won't actually make a TV. Just a bigger more functional iPad.
When did they say this? The original iMac in 1998 is what saved Apple from its death spiral.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
And just like it?s longterm failed effort to get video rights ? which I think is why the original AppleTV didn?t take off right away ? due to the iTMS exceptional success, Apple coming in and trying to get a deal with networks might be harder than someone like Roku wanting access.
What I can?t figure out is why cable, sat and DVR are being excluded from any discussion about an AppleTV. I know these are used throughout the US.
What I can?t figure out is why people don?t want an AppleTV with an App Store that is updated yearly along with the iPods. In a couple years the performance could be beyond that of the Xbox 360. If you have an AppleTV built into your TV you aren?t going to get another TV at $1,999 every year just to play the newest games, but you might if it?s external. I buy an iPhone and iPad each year because they are cheap and small, but I won?t be buying a new TV every year just to get some better performance.
What I can?t figure out is why it would be impossible for Apple to work with vendors so they don?t have to build a TV but can have access to a huge market of users with a wide variety of TV types, sizes and models to fit everyone?s needs.
Remember, many in business said "Nobody wants an ALL-In- Computer," but the iMac showed them wrong. My guess is Apple won't actually make a TV. Just a much much bigger and more functional iPad that people will think is a TV and hang it on the wall.
Apple has been making AIOs since the Lisa in 1983 or first Mac in 1984. The first iMac wasn?t successful because it was an AIO.
From the tone of your post. It sounds as if your over all point is that Apple needs Photoshop and MS Office more than they need Apple.
Not at all. Apple arguably set the template for both companies. One copied many of its ideas and the other existed because of it. I'd really be surprised if we disagreed about this.
I think that misses the point that the Mac was the most organized platform to develop for when Word and Photoshop were originally launched.
True that as well.
Just for the historical record (and 'cos I think it's interesting), though, Photoshop's roots (1988) are entirely in the Mac, while MS's Word was first a Xenix (1983) program, then a DOS (also '83) product lagging behind WordPerfect for DOS ('80) - and rose to its current dominance once Word for Windows ('89) crushed WordPerfect's late to market ('92) Win version.
But it is true that MS shipped a Mac version (1984) long before their own Win version. And Word for Mac's sales beat Word for MS-DOS' for four years! I'd forgotten that. Thank you.
Word was largely developed under the guidance of a former Xerox PARC employee! Among other things, then, it was the first mouseable word processor even on a character based screen, and was developed with a GUI goal from the beginning. This made it relatively straightforward to port to the PARC-steeped Mac OS. There were also an Atari (!) version (based on the Mac version!) and versions for UNIX and OS/2. So a Win version of Word was held up until Windows 3.0, which was the first remotely usable and popular version of Win, and which only came out five years after the Mac. Making Word for Windows - with which it is now so closely identified - the LAST platform it was released on. Ha!! Interesting.
As far as the money MS invested in Apple it was only a token gesture. Apple was holding over a billion in cash at the time.
Right again, except I'll say "symbolic" is a better description than "token." The twin announcements of development and cash had a big emotional impact on many groups: users, investors, developers, and more. It was huge in the press - Apple and mainstream media - at the time.
I think people forget (or don't know) just how close to the edge Apple was seen as being at its ebb tide. Again, another topic for another day, but they were in rough waters and losing Office would have been a huge PR blow, even with a billion in cash to burn. However, the fact no one had said Apple was about to lose Office only highlights it was the symbolism that mattered. The "vote of confidence" that they wouldn't stop development was strictly for publicity. Even tho' everyone knew MS was only doing so because they needed to keep Apple around for their own cynical reasons.
And since Apple's always been a far more interesting company by far than MS, the press wanted them to stick around too. A hundred mill or even half a bill - the story would've gotten the same play.
Yeah I'm not sure why this point needed to be made.
To remember that pride goeth before a fall. There's more and more over-the-top "we are the kings of the world" rhetoric going on in these threads of late.
Apple needs to stay humble, hungry, visionary and on top of its game - and not make many unforced turnovers. That's all.
Has to be the worst article in a while, Apple will never make a television set.
All you?re saying is they will succeed because they haven?t done it yet. That isn?t a business model. That isn?t a plan.
That's not what I would have expected from you. You've always been bigger than that.
What REX and I have been saying is Apple HAS been working to this goal in secrecy for a long time. And neither of us have proof they have, but I think I know Apple and probably REX does too. I know you do, that's why your position confuses me. If Apple entered this market at the end of this year (or next) it because they have been putting the necessary technology together for years.
This is thread is overly ridiculous. Sure, they aren?t required to make a profit, but to assume they would go to all this trouble just to lose money makes no sense.
Oh, and they had $1.1B in iTunes revenue last quarter. No idea of the profit but I have to assume there is a decent profit in there.
It's done all the time. I think they call it a lost leader. When iTunes started they lost money. They just paid out about $300 million rounded for SoundJam and brand to their liking. I would assume they still don't make much profit with the major share of that $1.1B going to the various studios, but their plan was to capture the MP3 player market. It was a means to an end for Apple. Anything else is gravy. They'll do again in the TV market but I suppose not as big as the iPod.
I could agree with this if the television industry were embracing the internet.
What they are mostly doing are trying some web experiments. Once these experiments begin to have any degree success. Out of fear they stifle the content flow by limiting what shows are available or placing new content behind unpopular pay walls.
The television industry is doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
I'm not sure the television industry (i.e. content providers) is relevant to Apple's TV plans (if there are any). Apple know people will get the TV and or video content and rip it or DVR it to their personal library. Apple will effectively sell a library management system for you living room and at the same time make a ton of money on games, family apps, educational apps, and what ever developers innovate.
And Apple will sidestep the limiting factor of such tactics by broadcast networks and hollywood. Apple doesn't care where you get your movies and TV from. They make money on hardware & software systems in a closed ecosystem.
It's done all the time. I think they call it a lost leader.
FYI, the term is "loss leader." Means an item used by retailers to lure shoppers in the door where they'll hopefully also buy (or only buy) the higher markup items.
Around Black Friday, limited super-specials at 4 am are also called "doorbusters," 'cos they get people lined up - and as history has shown, crowds have been known to actually trample store employees when the doors are opened.
Along with iLife and more, iTunes and the App Store with their free podcasts, radio streams, iTunes U courses and apps, etc., and possibly lower margin on total goods sold than in other divisions is also - and perhaps more - an example of "giving away blades to sell razors." Tho' in Apple's case, they also make some income on many of the blades as well. Another retailing term for this which aptly fits Apple is providing a "value add."
This is what fundamentally what distinguishes Apple from, on the one hand, MS and Google and on the other, companies like Samsung and Motorola. The former have little branded hardware to speak of in their overall revenue stream (tho' MS has some decent assets in X-Box, Kinect and other peripherals). The latter are great hardware companies but both have little to show for their software efforts.
As Tenobell has pointed out in this thread, Apple is by far the best at using software (OS and apps) and now content (music, video, films, books, etc.) to sell elegantly engineered and closely aligned hardware. Doesn't make 'em invincible, but they've built an amazing enterprise on a timeless and basic premise. Which has been used "all the time" by businesses - but seldom this well on this scale.
PS: This model is another reason for a long overdue Apple rethink of MobileMe, sez me, by the way! Done right, I believe they stand to more than make up higher bandwidth costs with increased hardware sales. For another, a free basic MobileMe can also generate revenue. I started with a free 5GB SugarSync account and that company is now happily pocketing $150/yr from me for 250 GB. And Apple can do much more than syncing and storage in the cloud with a better leveraging of MobileMe (I still hate the name, btw) into its fabled whole ecosystem.
Which division of Apple, full circle, is not necessarily divorced from Apple's push into the final frontier of the living room. Which again, to me, points away from a few bulky TV's fighting for shelf space (too big a razor, too few blades) and more towards ways to turn many 10's of millions of other maker's TV's essentially into Apple terminals as I believe Solipsism is arguing. At which point, the market might then be primed and ripe for a "real Apple TV."
That is what we are saying. The only way this could work is if television/movie studios allowed Apple to distribute content in the way Apple would want. They will not agree to that. There is no ecosystem.
see my posted answer to you above
The purpose of iTunes is to provide content and information management for all of Apple's consumer devices. How would a television accomplish this task?
As Steve Jobs has said (maybe indirectly), the center of his ecosystem will be the living room media center. It's the family gathering place for most families. The TV is front and center to this. Jobs in-visions that media center to be Apple branded and an Apple TV can bring it all together.
I believe you are right that Apple could make a television that some number of people would desire and want. I don't believe that at this point Apple could make a television and content platform that would really set them apart from everyone else. That is the type of television Apple would really want to create.
Obviously we disagree on this. And that's fine. What will set it apart is you'll plug it in connect it too the your internet/CableTV connection wirelessly or one cable, and everything you own that you have on your mac computer will just play and work seamlessly together.
When did they say this? The original iMac in 1998 is what saved Apple from its death spiral.
The WIndows PC industry has been saying it for years, ever since the first iMac, but when the ALuminum iMac came out those naysayers chocked on their words and ran to copy it!
....
What I can?t figure out is why people don?t want an AppleTV with an App Store that is updated yearly along with the iPods. In a couple years the performance could be beyond that of the Xbox 360. If you have an AppleTV built into your TV you aren?t going to get another TV at $1,999 every year just to play the newest games, but you might if it?s external.
Come on you know all about firmware upgrades. Even televisions have them. Some variant of iOS will undoubtedly be in control of an Apple TV and everything will be upgraded just like iOS devices are today. As for hardware upgrades, Apple could easy satisfy most of their user base by making it state of the art that will last a decade. Very few people need the latest greatest technology. The things the technology supports now is more than most people could imagine.
That is fanciful conjecture, not factual.
Lets talk after they release their TV
Apple’s been the exception because they have been exceptional. When the weren’t exceptional their offerings have failed to overtake a market so saying they will succeed because they are Apple is not any way accurate. They work hard to succeed and just like they say about knowing what not to include in their products, they also have a good track record of knowing what markets not to enter before they have a viable plan.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just taking the position that they can be exceptional in the TV market as well.
It was Cingular and they were apparently not the first. If you what you say is true about Apple’s Midas touch in business then Verizon wouldn’t have turned them down.
AT&T = Cingular in my mind. Anyhow, Verizon turned down Apple not because they didn't have faith in Apple, but because Verizon had too much faith in themselves. It was bad management at Verizon that led to that snafu. And in both cases, neither of them got to see the iPhone before they made their decision.
They accomplished this by knowing when and how to enter the market, not simply by entering the market. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise!
Again I don't disagree. I just think the TV market is ripe.
Show us proof. I don’t see these appliances as being “done” in any way. Your plan means that I won’t be able to watch my HBO and Showtime original programming unless I rent/buy it from iTS or wait for Netflx to get the DVD/streaming rights.
If you're always waiting for proof that it happened you'll never be the one making it happen. Today's model doesn't determine tomorrow's possibilities. Yada yada yada.
BTW, Dish Networks acquisition of Blockbuster is a good example of the trend. They recognize that people don't want to install dishes and buy expensive PVRs anymore. Its a stupid acquisition, but it does at least give some evidence of the trend.
Oh and don't forget all the iPad apps from TV networks that allow you to watch recent episodes. And the death of Tivo. And the popularity of Hulu. And the TimeWarner iPad app. These are all little steps toward the eventuality that the route into people's living room won't be the traditional cable receiver that we know today.
You’re not being futuristic, your just excited about the prospect of replacing a bunch of boxes for a single monitor in your living room.
Again, lets talk after they release their TV
Remember Steve Jobs mantra: The PC is dead. To a certain extent, that's true. Smartphones and tablets have come a long way. But TVs are going to be around forever. So why not build an Internet-enabled HDTV which can also serve all the functions of your computer through a cloud-based Mobile Me account?
The PC isn't dead and it won't be for a long time yet.
What Jobs called the "post PC era" isn't simply about people replacing their PCs with iPads and iPhones, it's about separating your digital life, that is all of the information you create (e.g. photos, home videos, documents etc) and all of the information you purchase (e.g. tv, movies etc) from your PC.
Another name might be the "cloud coalesced-computing era".
At the moment normal mainstream users create and purchase content and store it on their PC. They might then sync their iPad/iPhone or stream that content to their TV... but the PC is still the central hub that everything else revolves around.
In the "cloud coalesced-computing era" your content doesn't exist on one device, it lives everywhere. It may be stored in the cloud as well as being sync'd to the devices you own.
In that way all of the devices you own mesh together and form something of a united computing platform.
In a practical sense it means you could...
Microsoft have been talking about "three screens and the cloud" for a long long time, however I think it's going to end up being more like "5+ screens and the cloud" (PC\
otebook, smartphone, media tablet (or 2), TV and maybe even your car and lots of smaller screens like your camera, stereo, printer etc)
All that said I do agree with you about the TV. It's going to be a critical "screen" in the cloud computing platform and it's something that Apple need to attack.
You've hit the nail on the head with these comments. There is no doubt that the entire TV industry needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century but the question is how to do it!
The best outcome would probably come from Apple acting like a cable provider by offering a iTunes movie/TV subscription allowing you to view content on any device you own. Whilst not impossible (Microsoft have managed something similar with Xbox in Australia) I think the networks would do everything they could to stop Apple from achieving this goal.
And it still leaves the problem of the TV, in which I can't see any perfect scenario.
Having the Apple TV as a separate box isn't the best user experience, especially when you factor in the extra functions outside of movie/tv watching like AirPlay.
The other option is to somehow integrate the Apple TV into the actual TV, which all have their own problems as well.
- If Apple make the entire TV it's going to be a high-cost barrier to entry and people won't upgrade anywhere near as often.
- If Apple license out Apple TV to other manufacturers they lose a lot of control over the product.
Maybe the best solution (but still not perfect!) would be if Apple created an industry standard for allowing the Apple TV to interface with, and control, 3rd party TV's.Using Thunderbolt maybe?
Existing manufactures could continue to fight it out in the TV arena. Apple could still sell the Apple TV as a separate box that users could upgrade when required however would still get a better level of integration than they would with a totally separate box.
You?re talking ONE less cable and ONE less device that only takes up 4?x4?x1? just so you can have a nice UI for your monitor settings? How often are people jumping into their TVs settings anyway? The only common usage should be the Input and Volume, both of which are overlays, not internal menus.
Even just changing the inputs irritates me on many TVs, I always get the feeling that the TV manufacturers don't care about doing anything very well, slow and clunky. I don't use a TV's built-in speaker because they're almost always low quality (something that might benefit from an Apple entry), so the convenience of an integrated volume control is something I don't benefit from.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/14/w...-as-a-support/
One crucial things that Apple is willing to do that pretty no much no other company on the planet has the guts to do. That is to kill a product at the height of its popularity for a new product that they believe will be even more popular.
Apple needs to stay humble, hungry, visionary and on top of its game - and not make many unforced turnovers. That's all.