The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
Oddly, I just found out those rumors are likely false... Apparently, TPV/Philips was designing one for Apple but it fell through as an Apple product. Should be going on sale soon though branded as Philips.
(No specific information on this part, but I do understand it has something to do with an iPad.)
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorPaul
What an idiot. Perhaps licence Apple TV as an internal card, but not actually jump into low margin TV sets
Then the analyst goes on to provehis stupidity by proposing to undermine the genius bar that so differentiates the Apple brand
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako
This Um guy is an idiot, he is trying to suggest Apple should change it's business model to be like that of an average cable provider with field technicians, what utter trash.
Etc. Etc.
Say what you guys will, but it is, to me, a foregone conclusion that Apple will enter this currently commoditized market. Apple will charge a premium, and make a huge profit. And, its market cap will go up significantly.
Just remember that Apple was trading at ~$25 per share before the iPod, ~$100 per share before the iPhone, and ~$275 per share before the iPad.
If Apple were to enter this market I'd look for Ives to redesign the entire concept of a TV and for it to be made for Apple in total secret under license to their exact specifications with ground breaking new technology that will have the entire industry scrambling to have me-also products a year later. Google would no doubt come up with a clone they will give to other manufacturers to have a half baked, buggy look-a-likes but it will be open to hackers and will report everything you do to advertisers.
Then again, Apple might not
Start from scratch to redesign a product they have no experience with, in a low-margin market? Wouldn't make sense to me, but what would I know? IMO, better to work with a proven, experienced HDTV manufacturer.
FiOS just updated their interface where we are in Florida and it is worse than ever. The people that design the user interfaces for programming the HD-DVR must be rejects from Microsoft.
Well, there goes my last hope for FiOS. We get it free in our apartment, but I'll just spring for Direct TV because the FiOS DVR is just so miserable. DirectTV isn't perfect by a long shot, but it is at least more functional in the DVR area. I had hoped that the update would at least let you do things like delete all recorded episodes from a single series in one shot...
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
I agree. IMHO Apple would only enter this market if they have yet another paradigm shift up the sleeves of Ives and Jobs. I wouldn't totally write that off as a possibility though
I do not totally dismiss this rumor, but I do think the market cap gains are way overstated, at least in the short to medium run.
An Apple HDTV would currently have a niche appeal, but in the long run it could represent a disruptive force in the living room that might eventually overthrow the current cableTV regime.
Apple will NOT sell an HDTV that is meant to interface with the current tangled mess of cable box, DVD player, blu-ray player, and old VCR. But apple MIGHT sell an HDTV that gets its content exclusively from the Internet, local computers, and other iDevices (aka, an HDTV with AppleTV built in). In the short to medium run, this would appeal only to people who are willing to "cut the cable" and totally buy in to a new paradigm for getting content onto their TVs. That's currently a small group of people, but it's a group that is likely to grow over time.
So the real questions here are (1) will selling an HDTV with baked-in AppleTV ever get Apple any more money than just selling an AppleTV? and (2) if so, when does that happen?
My guess is that the answer to (1) is yes -- there will come a day when selling an HDTV that is an iDevice will make sense. But it's really #2 that is harder to foresee. My guess is that Apple will start to sell an iHDTV before it really makes money, just in order to get ahead of the competition. But my guess is that Apple will wait for the A6 before doing that.
Well, there goes my last hope for FiOS. We get it free in our apartment, but I'll just spring for Direct TV because the FiOS DVR is just so miserable. DirectTV isn't perfect by a long shot, but it is at least more functional in the DVR area. I had hoped that the update would at least let you do things like delete all recorded episodes from a single series in one shot...
It can do that, you can just cancel a series. My gripe is the fact most things take ten clicks to do and worst of all, unlike my Tivo of many years ago, it is still too dumb to know a show ran late and keep recording. Trying to watch all the Women's World cup on it has been a nightmare.
The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
Apple has demonstrated the ability to make substantial profits in areas traditionally thought to yield only razor-thin margins. Indeed, they are doing so as I write in both computers and smartphones.
Not that I am agreeing with this analyst; I just don't think it's a given that they will always ignore this market. Goodness knows, its horrific UIs and general user experience could benefit greatly from some Cupertino expertise. Their existing relationships with content providers and the app ecosystem would help.
No-one ever said that about Apple entering the handset business. Smartphones have always been about high margins, stretching back to the early 2000s.
You're right, actually they said that Apple couldn't succeed with smartphones because the existing smartphones were too good.
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
My point here is that it's entirely possible for people to be completely wrong about the potential for a disruptive new entrant into the market. The smartphone market had two at once which left it unrecognisable. I personally can't see a way for Apple to transform the HDTV market, but that doesn't mean that no such way exists.
If Apple were to enter this market I'd look for Ives to redesign the entire concept of a TV and for it to be made for Apple in total secret under license to their exact specifications with ground breaking new technology that will have the entire industry scrambling to have me-also products a year later. Google would no doubt come up with a clone they will give to other manufacturers to have a half baked, buggy look-a-likes but it will be open to hackers and will report everything you do to advertisers.
Then again, Apple might not
Several issues:
1. Everyone is under the assumption that Apple can fix the UI of TVs. But while the AppleTV interface is simple, I actually don't think it's all that good. And it's a lot different dealing with a list of recorded movies or songs than it is dealing with the contents of 600 to 1200 TV channels, music and VOD services.
2. If Apple did redesign the UI, do you really think they'd "play nice" with Pandora, Netflix, Amazon and all the other services that Apple seeks to replace?
3. Even if the TV's own interface is redesigned, that still leaves the interface forced upon us by the cable and satellite companies and as Steve said, there's no way Apple can control (or replace) those set top boxes because it's a very decentralized market and customers are forced to use the supplied box (in spite of the legislated effort to push Cable Card technology.)
4. I have trouble seeing (although maybe I simply don't have the vision) of what groundbreaking technology Apple could bring to the table. About the only thing I can see Apple doing is making the TV work well with their new Cloud implementation so at least recorded shows could be played on any device.
5. Would an Apple TV even have HDMI inputs? Steve Jobs may hate Blu-ray and feel that AV Receivers are passe, but the market doesn't, especially among high-end users. And if you're not a high-end user, you might as well watch TV on an iPad (and you probably wouldn't buy an Apple TV).
6. As others have stated, the HDTV business is low margin with constantly dropping prices on current models. Although in spite of that, the high end is very expensive: the top of the Sony line in 55" is $3800 and the top of the Panasonic line in 55" is $2800. In spite of those prices, the blogosphere is outraged over perceived imperfections in those models: varying black levels, varying light levels, "creases", "blooming", etc. Does Apple really need this grief? And if Apple OEMs someone else's model and charges far more for it, there would be further outrage, even if Apple puts a better UI on it.
7. One of the biggest problems is one that Apple can't address. In its infinite wisdom and its rush towards providing online services, the electronics industry has placed redundant technology on multiple devices. So certain services are available from my Blu-ray player, the same or other services may be available from the A/V receiver and the same or other services may be also available directly from the TV. This causes absurd confusion. Apple can do something about the TV (although would they do deals with their competitors?), but they can't do anything about the external devices that feed the TV.
So for all these reasons, I don't see Apple getting into this business. What I might see them getting into is expanding Apple TV or developing an associated device that would send TV programming to iPads, etc.
There are three arenas where the average consumer interacts with technology: Office, home, car.
There's no meat on the bones of the Living Room. What can an Apple monitor do that an Apple TV could not, and how do you charge a premium for it? The monitor is a passive technology that would leave Apple competing on price and screen quality. I suspect the AppleTV is the result of Apple R&D spending a lot of time trying to crack the nut, and finding nothing useful. So instead of just trashing the whole idea, they released a "hobby" project.
But the auto. Last month, I bought a $1,000 Kenwood Head Unit (at a 50% discount) from Best Buy that has a kludgy ipod interface, a kludgy bluetooth interface for my iPhone, and a kludgy GPS interface that is down right dangerous to manage when I'm trying to drive.
In the past, there have been rumors of an apple branded Volkswagen, but not surprisingly, nothing came of it. Who at Apple would be interested in working on cam shafts? But what about the electronic interface? Sound, navigation, communications. Perhaps even climate control. How much would Toyota pay to have the iMove system installed in all their Camrys?
Apple has been acquiring mapping/navigation companies, but Eric Schmidt recently said that Apple has renewed the google maps app for the iPhone. So where is Apple going with that technology?
Apple has been acquiring voice recognition technology companies, but hasn't really placed much emphasis on the technology in either the iOs or OSX. Other than voice dialing (which the iPhone already does passably), where's the payoff?
Apple has also been doing stuff around traffic monitoring as well:
But the car electronics market looks just like the mp3 market did before the iPod. Kludgy, largely ignored by high tech folks and prime for ownership. And existing Apple technology, applied in the setting, would be astounding.
I can't believe many of the posts here. Very shortsighted thinking. Many of you can't see the forest or the trees.
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and doing it the Apple way. This usually means that they do things in a way that we don't expect and in a way that doesn't satisfy everyone. But it will satisfy enough people and do enough things right that there is a solid foundation for growth, and over some years it will end up satisfying most people.
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
1. Everyone is under the assumption that Apple can fix the UI of TVs. But while the AppleTV interface is simple, I actually don't think it's all that good. And it's a lot different dealing with a list of recorded movies or songs than it is dealing with the contents of 600 to 1200 TV channels, music and VOD services..........
If you look at what a good custom AMX setup can do to improve things, there is plenty of room for Apple to make a splash (even if they just want to buy AMX outright). The goal is simply zero configuration. Integration is an easy strategy as well-- integrate a front channel speaker, Kinect, direct outputs for the other 4 channels from the TV, and an application platform, and you have an instant hit. STB? Well... there might be a lot of cable companies, but there aren't a whole lot of STB manufacturers. Build macros for each box, work with each manufacturer on communications protocols, and threaten to drive them out of business if they don't cooperate.
The cable company might have 1200 channels, but I sure as hell don't subscribe to all of them. First eliminate the ones that I can't get! Then... look at the ones that I actually watch for more than 30 seconds and prioritize them! Get rid of the idea of channel numbers!
Apple could innovate here... but I don't really think that is their goal. They would much rather co-opt the market for televisions than dominate that market.
I've been watching this discussion with some interest. I do think that most people have been correct in that Apple wouldn't want to participate in the low-margin TV world. There just isn't that much profit incentive for Apple to put the energy.
But what if Apple could use it's influence, cash reserves and supply chain dominance to make the margin problem better? One thing that Apple knows how to do better than anyone else is to make electronics. And in every generation of products, Apple continues to separate itself from competitors. What if Apple were able to significantly advance the state of electronics on a TV while also lowering the cost to build it? Apple already has the significant supply chain supporting the iPhone, iPad and Mac to build on. The A5 can power a TV now and bring with it a great OS in iOS to go along with it. With iOS, you could drive a lot of services currently either unavailable or poorly implemented in TVs from other manufacturers. For example, you could make it an instant gaming TV out of the box.
If Apple were to do this, I would not expect them to target the low end TV business. I would guess you would limit the number of SKUs by focusing on quality products aimed at Apple's target audience for a buyer. So let's say that Apple got into the LCD TV business. I could see them limiting themselves to two or three screen sizes tops. LED backlighting would be standard and I imagine that they would try to push the envelope of the technology in some sort of way. And of course, iOS and lots of apps would be driving it.
Still there are lots of potential problems. A repair network that can handle something like this is a big undertaking. Even at Apple stores, you'd probably have to hire people who specialized in TVs. And one I think about is obsolescence. iPhones turn over in 2-3 years, Mac in 3-5 years. A TV can easily be a 10 year purchase. It's safe to say that the guts that drive the TV would be obsolete in no time since it would be tracking iPhone/iPad technology. It's possible to have the guts be replaceable/upgradable but making it cost effective is another matter.
I'm in the market for a TV right now. If Apple made one, it would immediately go on a short list of products to consider.
I personally would love an Apple HDTV. I use to love Sony but recently my 40" HDTV from them just completely died. It did not appear to have any signs of death and one day I decide to turn it off and then the next day it doesn't display video. When I read reviews of the particular model I have on Amazon nearly everyone had the same issue. Did Sony plan for this to happen?
To my point, Apple would make a quality product and would not disappoint.
But the car electronics market looks just like the mp3 market did before the iPod. Kludgy, largely ignored by high tech folks and prime for ownership. And existing Apple technology, applied in the setting, would be astounding.
There's a fundamental problem with entering the Car electronics market for Apple, and that's control over the product. Ultimately they would be a bolt on to somebody else's hardware, they would risk brand contamination if the car-maker delivered a bad car and they wouldn't have the relationship with the consumer.
Apple HATES not having control over the relationship, and it HATES not having control over the experience. I'd say it's even less likely than an Apple HDTV.
You realize that people said pretty much the same thing back in 2007 about handsets right? They were low margin, Apple should just license an OS, etc. Apple went on to demonstrate that it could offer a completely new experience on the phone which consumers would pay for.
If Apple decide to enter the HDTV market it will be because they feel they can differentiate from the existing market, enough to earn a nice margin on top. I've no idea if it will enter the market, but it almost has to have considered it, because at this point there are very few markets that Apple can enter that will materially affect their bottom line.
Apple has the problem of success - it owns the PMP market, it's growing strongly in the handset market, it seems likely to own the tablet market. Where does it go next? What possible business can it invest in that will materially affect the bottom line?
The reason this rumour keeps popping up again and again is because the HDTV market is big enough to make an impact, and fits vaguely into Apple's core competency.
Except that the HDTV market doesn't resemble the PMP, smartphone or tablet markets prior to Apple's entry. Those were all markets where existing products totally sucked and were perceived as totally sucking. (Some might dispute this for smartphones, but, before the iPhone, expect for Blackberrys, which are basically just texting appliances, people weren't rushing out to buy smartphones, and they really didn't do much.)
Existing HDTVs don't totally suck, and aren't perceived to by the general public. It's not a market crying out to be redefined.
Comments
One reason would be to make 'a statement'.
The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
(No specific information on this part, but I do understand it has something to do with an iPad.)
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
What an idiot. Perhaps licence Apple TV as an internal card, but not actually jump into low margin TV sets
Then the analyst goes on to provehis stupidity by proposing to undermine the genius bar that so differentiates the Apple brand
This Um guy is an idiot, he is trying to suggest Apple should change it's business model to be like that of an average cable provider with field technicians, what utter trash.
Etc. Etc.
Say what you guys will, but it is, to me, a foregone conclusion that Apple will enter this currently commoditized market. Apple will charge a premium, and make a huge profit. And, its market cap will go up significantly.
Just remember that Apple was trading at ~$25 per share before the iPod, ~$100 per share before the iPhone, and ~$275 per share before the iPad.
Apple will charge a premium, and make a huge profit. And, its market cap will go up significantly.
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
If Apple were to enter this market I'd look for Ives to redesign the entire concept of a TV and for it to be made for Apple in total secret under license to their exact specifications with ground breaking new technology that will have the entire industry scrambling to have me-also products a year later. Google would no doubt come up with a clone they will give to other manufacturers to have a half baked, buggy look-a-likes but it will be open to hackers and will report everything you do to advertisers.
Then again, Apple might not
Start from scratch to redesign a product they have no experience with, in a low-margin market? Wouldn't make sense to me, but what would I know? IMO, better to work with a proven, experienced HDTV manufacturer.
FiOS just updated their interface where we are in Florida and it is worse than ever. The people that design the user interfaces for programming the HD-DVR must be rejects from Microsoft.
Well, there goes my last hope for FiOS. We get it free in our apartment, but I'll just spring for Direct TV because the FiOS DVR is just so miserable. DirectTV isn't perfect by a long shot, but it is at least more functional in the DVR area. I had hoped that the update would at least let you do things like delete all recorded episodes from a single series in one shot...
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
I agree. IMHO Apple would only enter this market if they have yet another paradigm shift up the sleeves of Ives and Jobs. I wouldn't totally write that off as a possibility though
An Apple HDTV would currently have a niche appeal, but in the long run it could represent a disruptive force in the living room that might eventually overthrow the current cableTV regime.
Apple will NOT sell an HDTV that is meant to interface with the current tangled mess of cable box, DVD player, blu-ray player, and old VCR. But apple MIGHT sell an HDTV that gets its content exclusively from the Internet, local computers, and other iDevices (aka, an HDTV with AppleTV built in). In the short to medium run, this would appeal only to people who are willing to "cut the cable" and totally buy in to a new paradigm for getting content onto their TVs. That's currently a small group of people, but it's a group that is likely to grow over time.
So the real questions here are (1) will selling an HDTV with baked-in AppleTV ever get Apple any more money than just selling an AppleTV? and (2) if so, when does that happen?
My guess is that the answer to (1) is yes -- there will come a day when selling an HDTV that is an iDevice will make sense. But it's really #2 that is harder to foresee. My guess is that Apple will start to sell an iHDTV before it really makes money, just in order to get ahead of the competition. But my guess is that Apple will wait for the A6 before doing that.
Well, there goes my last hope for FiOS. We get it free in our apartment, but I'll just spring for Direct TV because the FiOS DVR is just so miserable. DirectTV isn't perfect by a long shot, but it is at least more functional in the DVR area. I had hoped that the update would at least let you do things like delete all recorded episodes from a single series in one shot...
It can do that, you can just cancel a series. My gripe is the fact most things take ten clicks to do and worst of all, unlike my Tivo of many years ago, it is still too dumb to know a show ran late and keep recording. Trying to watch all the Women's World cup on it has been a nightmare.
The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
Apple has demonstrated the ability to make substantial profits in areas traditionally thought to yield only razor-thin margins. Indeed, they are doing so as I write in both computers and smartphones.
Not that I am agreeing with this analyst; I just don't think it's a given that they will always ignore this market. Goodness knows, its horrific UIs and general user experience could benefit greatly from some Cupertino expertise. Their existing relationships with content providers and the app ecosystem would help.
No-one ever said that about Apple entering the handset business. Smartphones have always been about high margins, stretching back to the early 2000s.
You're right, actually they said that Apple couldn't succeed with smartphones because the existing smartphones were too good.
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
(from cnet )
My point here is that it's entirely possible for people to be completely wrong about the potential for a disruptive new entrant into the market. The smartphone market had two at once which left it unrecognisable. I personally can't see a way for Apple to transform the HDTV market, but that doesn't mean that no such way exists.
If Apple were to enter this market I'd look for Ives to redesign the entire concept of a TV and for it to be made for Apple in total secret under license to their exact specifications with ground breaking new technology that will have the entire industry scrambling to have me-also products a year later. Google would no doubt come up with a clone they will give to other manufacturers to have a half baked, buggy look-a-likes but it will be open to hackers and will report everything you do to advertisers.
Then again, Apple might not
Several issues:
1. Everyone is under the assumption that Apple can fix the UI of TVs. But while the AppleTV interface is simple, I actually don't think it's all that good. And it's a lot different dealing with a list of recorded movies or songs than it is dealing with the contents of 600 to 1200 TV channels, music and VOD services.
2. If Apple did redesign the UI, do you really think they'd "play nice" with Pandora, Netflix, Amazon and all the other services that Apple seeks to replace?
3. Even if the TV's own interface is redesigned, that still leaves the interface forced upon us by the cable and satellite companies and as Steve said, there's no way Apple can control (or replace) those set top boxes because it's a very decentralized market and customers are forced to use the supplied box (in spite of the legislated effort to push Cable Card technology.)
4. I have trouble seeing (although maybe I simply don't have the vision) of what groundbreaking technology Apple could bring to the table. About the only thing I can see Apple doing is making the TV work well with their new Cloud implementation so at least recorded shows could be played on any device.
5. Would an Apple TV even have HDMI inputs? Steve Jobs may hate Blu-ray and feel that AV Receivers are passe, but the market doesn't, especially among high-end users. And if you're not a high-end user, you might as well watch TV on an iPad (and you probably wouldn't buy an Apple TV).
6. As others have stated, the HDTV business is low margin with constantly dropping prices on current models. Although in spite of that, the high end is very expensive: the top of the Sony line in 55" is $3800 and the top of the Panasonic line in 55" is $2800. In spite of those prices, the blogosphere is outraged over perceived imperfections in those models: varying black levels, varying light levels, "creases", "blooming", etc. Does Apple really need this grief? And if Apple OEMs someone else's model and charges far more for it, there would be further outrage, even if Apple puts a better UI on it.
7. One of the biggest problems is one that Apple can't address. In its infinite wisdom and its rush towards providing online services, the electronics industry has placed redundant technology on multiple devices. So certain services are available from my Blu-ray player, the same or other services may be available from the A/V receiver and the same or other services may be also available directly from the TV. This causes absurd confusion. Apple can do something about the TV (although would they do deals with their competitors?), but they can't do anything about the external devices that feed the TV.
So for all these reasons, I don't see Apple getting into this business. What I might see them getting into is expanding Apple TV or developing an associated device that would send TV programming to iPads, etc.
There's no meat on the bones of the Living Room. What can an Apple monitor do that an Apple TV could not, and how do you charge a premium for it? The monitor is a passive technology that would leave Apple competing on price and screen quality. I suspect the AppleTV is the result of Apple R&D spending a lot of time trying to crack the nut, and finding nothing useful. So instead of just trashing the whole idea, they released a "hobby" project.
But the auto. Last month, I bought a $1,000 Kenwood Head Unit (at a 50% discount) from Best Buy that has a kludgy ipod interface, a kludgy bluetooth interface for my iPhone, and a kludgy GPS interface that is down right dangerous to manage when I'm trying to drive.
In the past, there have been rumors of an apple branded Volkswagen, but not surprisingly, nothing came of it. Who at Apple would be interested in working on cam shafts? But what about the electronic interface? Sound, navigation, communications. Perhaps even climate control. How much would Toyota pay to have the iMove system installed in all their Camrys?
Apple has been acquiring mapping/navigation companies, but Eric Schmidt recently said that Apple has renewed the google maps app for the iPhone. So where is Apple going with that technology?
Apple has been acquiring voice recognition technology companies, but hasn't really placed much emphasis on the technology in either the iOs or OSX. Other than voice dialing (which the iPhone already does passably), where's the payoff?
Apple has also been doing stuff around traffic monitoring as well:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/02/paten...lendar-alerts/
But the car electronics market looks just like the mp3 market did before the iPod. Kludgy, largely ignored by high tech folks and prime for ownership. And existing Apple technology, applied in the setting, would be astounding.
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
Race-to-the-bottom?
How would you describe PCs? Cellphones?
If they are different, how?
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
Several issues:
1. Everyone is under the assumption that Apple can fix the UI of TVs. But while the AppleTV interface is simple, I actually don't think it's all that good. And it's a lot different dealing with a list of recorded movies or songs than it is dealing with the contents of 600 to 1200 TV channels, music and VOD services..........
If you look at what a good custom AMX setup can do to improve things, there is plenty of room for Apple to make a splash (even if they just want to buy AMX outright). The goal is simply zero configuration. Integration is an easy strategy as well-- integrate a front channel speaker, Kinect, direct outputs for the other 4 channels from the TV, and an application platform, and you have an instant hit. STB? Well... there might be a lot of cable companies, but there aren't a whole lot of STB manufacturers. Build macros for each box, work with each manufacturer on communications protocols, and threaten to drive them out of business if they don't cooperate.
The cable company might have 1200 channels, but I sure as hell don't subscribe to all of them. First eliminate the ones that I can't get! Then... look at the ones that I actually watch for more than 30 seconds and prioritize them! Get rid of the idea of channel numbers!
Apple could innovate here... but I don't really think that is their goal. They would much rather co-opt the market for televisions than dominate that market.
But what if Apple could use it's influence, cash reserves and supply chain dominance to make the margin problem better? One thing that Apple knows how to do better than anyone else is to make electronics. And in every generation of products, Apple continues to separate itself from competitors. What if Apple were able to significantly advance the state of electronics on a TV while also lowering the cost to build it? Apple already has the significant supply chain supporting the iPhone, iPad and Mac to build on. The A5 can power a TV now and bring with it a great OS in iOS to go along with it. With iOS, you could drive a lot of services currently either unavailable or poorly implemented in TVs from other manufacturers. For example, you could make it an instant gaming TV out of the box.
If Apple were to do this, I would not expect them to target the low end TV business. I would guess you would limit the number of SKUs by focusing on quality products aimed at Apple's target audience for a buyer. So let's say that Apple got into the LCD TV business. I could see them limiting themselves to two or three screen sizes tops. LED backlighting would be standard and I imagine that they would try to push the envelope of the technology in some sort of way. And of course, iOS and lots of apps would be driving it.
Still there are lots of potential problems. A repair network that can handle something like this is a big undertaking. Even at Apple stores, you'd probably have to hire people who specialized in TVs. And one I think about is obsolescence. iPhones turn over in 2-3 years, Mac in 3-5 years. A TV can easily be a 10 year purchase. It's safe to say that the guts that drive the TV would be obsolete in no time since it would be tracking iPhone/iPad technology. It's possible to have the guts be replaceable/upgradable but making it cost effective is another matter.
I'm in the market for a TV right now. If Apple made one, it would immediately go on a short list of products to consider.
To my point, Apple would make a quality product and would not disappoint.
But the car electronics market looks just like the mp3 market did before the iPod. Kludgy, largely ignored by high tech folks and prime for ownership. And existing Apple technology, applied in the setting, would be astounding.
There's a fundamental problem with entering the Car electronics market for Apple, and that's control over the product. Ultimately they would be a bolt on to somebody else's hardware, they would risk brand contamination if the car-maker delivered a bad car and they wouldn't have the relationship with the consumer.
Apple HATES not having control over the relationship, and it HATES not having control over the experience. I'd say it's even less likely than an Apple HDTV.
You realize that people said pretty much the same thing back in 2007 about handsets right? They were low margin, Apple should just license an OS, etc. Apple went on to demonstrate that it could offer a completely new experience on the phone which consumers would pay for.
If Apple decide to enter the HDTV market it will be because they feel they can differentiate from the existing market, enough to earn a nice margin on top. I've no idea if it will enter the market, but it almost has to have considered it, because at this point there are very few markets that Apple can enter that will materially affect their bottom line.
Apple has the problem of success - it owns the PMP market, it's growing strongly in the handset market, it seems likely to own the tablet market. Where does it go next? What possible business can it invest in that will materially affect the bottom line?
The reason this rumour keeps popping up again and again is because the HDTV market is big enough to make an impact, and fits vaguely into Apple's core competency.
Except that the HDTV market doesn't resemble the PMP, smartphone or tablet markets prior to Apple's entry. Those were all markets where existing products totally sucked and were perceived as totally sucking. (Some might dispute this for smartphones, but, before the iPhone, expect for Blackberrys, which are basically just texting appliances, people weren't rushing out to buy smartphones, and they really didn't do much.)
Existing HDTVs don't totally suck, and aren't perceived to by the general public. It's not a market crying out to be redefined.