And what would this have to do with an Apple television?
It has everything to do with an Apple branded HDTV.... Big picture man. The race to dominate the living room...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
The HDTV industry is currently in a mode where they are tossing everything up on the wall and trying to see what sticks.
I "got" that 120Hz made pictures more fluid ...but couldn't see the point of 240hz and beyond
I "got" that local dimming was the "in" thing even though my eyes couldn't see a big diff.
I "got" that Avatar was great in 3D but I wasn't about to pay extra for goggles at home.
The reason why people aren't upgrading their sets is because there haven't been any major updates to technology other than larger panels. We've been sold on hz and widgets and 3D but that's just not getting consumers to scrap older tech that still works.
New ideas are needed IMO.
New ideas are very much needed. But IMO, home theater entertainment has is an over-saturated market.
I agree with you, they are throwing all kinds of crap at the wall to see what sticks (3D, YouTube/Netflix integration, Facebook integration, etc.). One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing new with televisions. Like I said in a previous post, televisions are nothing more than a stupid device whose soul purpose is to display a picture. At the end of the day, there is nothing more than that.
My two biggest problems with Apple entering this market is that one; it is a mature, saturated marketplace that does not offer the growth potential like other up and coming markets (i.e., the smart phone market pre-iPhone) and two its not a market were people will upgrade frequently. How often does one buy a new TV? Every 5-7 years? It definitely longer than the PC refresh rate.
The race to win the living has always been about content not LCD panels...
Microsoft are integrating voice commands into the X360 very soon. The demos look impressive and it all plugs in to the usual online video streaming services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
And what would this have to do with an Apple television?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
It has everything to do with an Apple branded HDTV.... Big picture man. The race to dominate the living room...
Considering the X360 isn't a TV and hooks up to a TV, I still fail to see why the X360 would be relevant to Apple releasing an HDTV. IF Apple were to release a TV, which I still doubt, i would think you could still hook an X360 and most other things up to it as well. I can't see people buying any TV unless it allowed most, if not all, of the devices they already have attached to their current TV to be attached as well. I don't think most people would be willing to toss their older TV attachments away just to have an Apple or any other company's TV.
Considering the X360 isn't a TV and hooks up to a TV, I still fail to see why the X360 would be relevant to Apple releasing an HDTV. IF Apple were to release a TV, which I still doubt, i would think you could still hook an X360 and most other things up to it as well. I can't see people buying any TV unless it allowed most, if not all, of the devices they already have attached to their current TV to be attached as well. I don't think most people would be willing to toss their older TV attachments away just to have an Apple or any other company's TV.
Its relevant because it is another interface for the TV that won't change with Apple's potential offering. In fact, devices like the XBOX and PS3 would actually dilute the Apple experience... And that is the point of this discussion. If Apple can't control everything aspect of a device (both UI and hardware) there offering simply can't compete.
Nobody should care about the box itself only the content displayed on it (interface, shows, movies, games, etc.) . Your HDTV is like your computer monitor attached to your Mac Mini... A necessary accessory. But that is it.
Why would anyone want an integrated AppleTV with an HDTV is beyond me. Do you really think Apple will support an integrated AppleTV accessory for the life of the TV?
IMO, the cable companies, television studios, and movie studios have no use for Apple. There is no reason why they would threaten their monopolies in dealing with Apple.
The video linked previously sums it up.. The cable companies business model has to change. Once it does, then Apple could introduced some really awesome technology on the scene, but not until the cable companies change....
You can't possibly know what Hollywood will and won't give Apple.
The lack of 1080p now doesn't set that in stone for all eternity.
Would you go backward from a 720P to 480? Thunderbolt to FIREWIRE.?
1080P is the industry HD benchmark except at Apple.
Based on history Hollywood has already given Amazon Hulu and Netflix more. This is why you cannot buy 1080P at iTunes. Hollywood wants to control content and will NOT let Apple take control.
Not really. Everyone and their brother chided Apple for not including an FM tuner on the iPod (and I would assume iPhone) because you just had to listen to radio. Now, there is things like TuneIn Radio bypassing that spectrum.
I doubt Apple is going to go backwards and include a tuner in such an television. Already, many broadcasters are offering their wares on the Internet. Why wouldn't Apple tap into that?
Because something would be left out? Something big and popular? Like the Beatles were from iTunes?
Everybody and their brother chided Apple for not including an FM tuner on the iPod? Really? Then why did the iPod quickly become #1 - and stay there for a long time? In reality, it was a small number of people who think they're smarter than Apple who were complaining about lack of a tuner.
Besides, the two situations are different. Even by the time the iPod came out, there were a lot of portable players that didn't have radios. Sony had a walkman that played CDs and no radio. The radio is not essential to what the device was made to do - play mp3 tunes downloaded from your computer.
For a TV, the picture (ahem) is different. It's hard to imagine what good a TV would be if it didn't play TV shows off the air or off cable. If you simply want to play stuff that you have on iTunes, you don't need a TV - you simply need a monitor hooked up to your computer. How well have monitors sold compared to TVs? Not very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
The HDTV industry is currently in a mode where they are tossing everything up on the wall and trying to see what sticks.
I "got" that 120Hz made pictures more fluid ...but couldn't see the point of 240hz and beyond
I "got" that local dimming was the "in" thing even though my eyes couldn't see a big diff.
I "got" that Avatar was great in 3D but I wasn't about to pay extra for goggles at home.
The reason why people aren't upgrading their sets is because there haven't been any major updates to technology other than larger panels. We've been sold on hz and widgets and 3D but that's just not getting consumers to scrap older tech that still works.
New ideas are needed IMO.
I agree. And all of that is compounded by the fact that 3D, at least, is a significant backward step for many people. Not only do you need goggles (which is inconvenient and clumsy), but a significant percentage of people can't see 3D on the TV - and may even get headaches from trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope.
Apple would lose 1 billion or more in the first quarter alone after an HDTV launch. It's idiotic.
I'm not sold on the idea of an Apple HDTV. I'm starting to see that it's not entirely out of the question, although I think they could get there just as easily by selling and licensing a card to TV manufacturers. But that aside, I'm curious how the heck you managed to come up with that figure. Let's see your detailed P&L projections and the marketing research to support them.
Or are you just playing 'analyst' and pulling numbers out of your rear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksT
Yep, that's what I thought too. No concept of channels or networks, just shows and movies. Tell it what you want to watch.
You: "I want to watch tonight's Mad Men"
Siri: "Here's tonight's episode of Mad Men"
You: "Play Monday Night Football"
Siri: "The game hasn't started yet, should I change to the game once it does?"
You: "Give me a list of episodes in Community, season 2"
Siri: "Here's a list of the episodes in season two of Community, would you like to watch one?"
That would be awesome.
How about: "What baseball games are playing tonight?" or "What sitcoms are playing?"
However, I could see a couple of problems:
1. Microphone sensitivity and noise reduction would be an issue. You're telling it what to do from across the room - possibly while the TV is already playing.
2. How do they filter out fake signals? For example, you're watching "How I Met Your Mother" and Robin says "let's watch 'Friends'". There has to be a way to filter that out.
3. With a remote, only one person can control it at a time. I could picture that voice activation could turn into a shouting match.
I suppose it might be possible to deal with #1 and #2 by programming it to automatically ignore any sound coming through the system, but it still sounds like quite a challenging technological problem.
I'm not sold on the idea of an Apple HDTV. I'm starting to see that it's not entirely out of the question, although I think they could get there just as easily by selling and licensing a card to TV manufacturers. But that aside, I'm curious how the heck you managed to come up with that figure. Let's see your detailed P&L projections and the marketing research to support them.
Or are you just playing 'analyst' and pulling numbers out of your rear?
Ballparking based on adding up all the factors inherent in creating something like this. You have to guess for R&D and some of it, but it's fairly close.
And I don't mean negative 1 billion revenue, I mean 1 billion LESS revenue than they were expecting otherwise, but even that's sounding WAY too optimistic.
Apple isn't Hulu. Apple isn't Amazon. Apple isn't Netflix.
Too late.
I agree it's too late for apple to get the vast trove of Hollywood content necessary to launch a film streaming service now that SJ is gone. He couldn't even get it even when he was around- not that he didn't try.
Its relevant because it is another interface for the TV that won't change with Apple's potential offering. In fact, devices like the XBOX and PS3 would actually dilute the Apple experience... And that is the point of this discussion. If Apple can't control everything aspect of a device (both UI and hardware) there offering simply can't compete.
Nobody should care about the box itself only the content displayed on it (interface, shows, movies, games, etc.) . Your HDTV is like your computer monitor attached to your Mac Mini... A necessary accessory. But that is it.
Why would anyone want an integrated AppleTV with an HDTV is beyond me. Do you really think Apple will support an integrated AppleTV accessory for the life of the TV?
IMO, the cable companies, television studios, and movie studios have no use for Apple. There is no reason why they would threaten their monopolies in dealing with Apple.
The video linked previously sums it up.. The cable companies business model has to change. Once it does, then Apple could introduced some really awesome technology on the scene, but not until the cable companies change....
I'm not so sure about that. If it's a television, then you control the input so you can play your xbox, finish and change the input like any other TV except maybe you do it with Siri-like voice commands instead of a remote. Also, there is a possibility for picture-in-picture. If you're playing your console and stuck in a game, pause it, call up siri for another, smaller screen and get a walkthru from youtube or vimeo then resume game.
If there's ever any revolutionary innovation in TV, it will be a fundamental change in the business model?probably in the TV network/movie studio business model. The hardware and software will be incidental.
Ballparking based on adding up all the factors inherent in creating something like this. You have to guess for R&D and some of it, but it's fairly close.
And I don't mean negative 1 billion revenue, I mean 1 billion LESS revenue than they were expecting otherwise, but even that's sounding WAY too optimistic.
That's absurd.
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell. That's equally ridiculous. You're going to estimate the same $1 B deficiency whether they project $20 in sales or $20 trillion? Wouldn't it require you to know their estimate before you could guess how much they'd miss by?
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell. That's equally ridiculous. You're going to estimate the same $1 B deficiency whether they project $20 in sales or $20 trillion? Wouldn't it require you to know their estimate before you could guess how much they'd miss by?
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
To add to the bolded point, Apple tends to shoot for a certain percentage of an established market to measure success. For example, Steve Jobs said he would be ecstatic if Apple captured 1% of the cell phone market. If Apple decided to release an HDTV, I'm pretty sure its executives have determined not only cost and price point but also how much minimum share it needs to survive (even at "hobby" status).
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Uh? no?
Quote:
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell.
Uh, NO.
I mean to say that the first quarter after the release of an HDTV, Apple would take in at least $1 billion less in revenue than projected prior to the release of said HDTV.
For example, Apple expects 35 billion in revenue this quarter, without an HDTV. If they were to release an HDTV this quarter, I figure they'd wind up with at MOST 34 billion.
Quote:
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
Me, given that I'm judging the market as one that has always had razor-thin margins and where a TV $2,000 more than its counterparts at the same size won't sell, regardless of how good it is.
Comments
And what would this have to do with an Apple television?
It has everything to do with an Apple branded HDTV.... Big picture man. The race to dominate the living room...
The HDTV industry is currently in a mode where they are tossing everything up on the wall and trying to see what sticks.
I "got" that 120Hz made pictures more fluid ...but couldn't see the point of 240hz and beyond
I "got" that local dimming was the "in" thing even though my eyes couldn't see a big diff.
I "got" that Avatar was great in 3D but I wasn't about to pay extra for goggles at home.
The reason why people aren't upgrading their sets is because there haven't been any major updates to technology other than larger panels. We've been sold on hz and widgets and 3D but that's just not getting consumers to scrap older tech that still works.
New ideas are needed IMO.
New ideas are very much needed. But IMO, home theater entertainment has is an over-saturated market.
I agree with you, they are throwing all kinds of crap at the wall to see what sticks (3D, YouTube/Netflix integration, Facebook integration, etc.). One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing new with televisions. Like I said in a previous post, televisions are nothing more than a stupid device whose soul purpose is to display a picture. At the end of the day, there is nothing more than that.
My two biggest problems with Apple entering this market is that one; it is a mature, saturated marketplace that does not offer the growth potential like other up and coming markets (i.e., the smart phone market pre-iPhone) and two its not a market were people will upgrade frequently. How often does one buy a new TV? Every 5-7 years? It definitely longer than the PC refresh rate.
The race to win the living has always been about content not LCD panels...
Microsoft are integrating voice commands into the X360 very soon. The demos look impressive and it all plugs in to the usual online video streaming services.
And what would this have to do with an Apple television?
It has everything to do with an Apple branded HDTV.... Big picture man. The race to dominate the living room...
Considering the X360 isn't a TV and hooks up to a TV, I still fail to see why the X360 would be relevant to Apple releasing an HDTV. IF Apple were to release a TV, which I still doubt, i would think you could still hook an X360 and most other things up to it as well. I can't see people buying any TV unless it allowed most, if not all, of the devices they already have attached to their current TV to be attached as well. I don't think most people would be willing to toss their older TV attachments away just to have an Apple or any other company's TV.
Considering the X360 isn't a TV and hooks up to a TV, I still fail to see why the X360 would be relevant to Apple releasing an HDTV. IF Apple were to release a TV, which I still doubt, i would think you could still hook an X360 and most other things up to it as well. I can't see people buying any TV unless it allowed most, if not all, of the devices they already have attached to their current TV to be attached as well. I don't think most people would be willing to toss their older TV attachments away just to have an Apple or any other company's TV.
Its relevant because it is another interface for the TV that won't change with Apple's potential offering. In fact, devices like the XBOX and PS3 would actually dilute the Apple experience... And that is the point of this discussion. If Apple can't control everything aspect of a device (both UI and hardware) there offering simply can't compete.
Nobody should care about the box itself only the content displayed on it (interface, shows, movies, games, etc.) . Your HDTV is like your computer monitor attached to your Mac Mini... A necessary accessory. But that is it.
Why would anyone want an integrated AppleTV with an HDTV is beyond me. Do you really think Apple will support an integrated AppleTV accessory for the life of the TV?
IMO, the cable companies, television studios, and movie studios have no use for Apple. There is no reason why they would threaten their monopolies in dealing with Apple.
The video linked previously sums it up.. The cable companies business model has to change. Once it does, then Apple could introduced some really awesome technology on the scene, but not until the cable companies change....
hey, what about me? As i remember, we kinda came up with the same idea around the same time... :d
I agree with Tallest, sorry, Ireland.
There will be an external box that replaces your cable box, or accepts input from it. It will have SIRI and wll be the third iteration of the AppleTV.
If you think Apple's will release a set top box with Siri I can't help you.
If you think Apple's will release a set top box with Siri I can't help you.
I also don't agree that Siri would work on the Apple TV. You can't fight the audio stream.
Huh, this seems to be a four way war now.
Apple will release an HDTV.
Apple will release an HDTV with Siri.
Apple will release a new Apple TV.
Apple will release a new Apple TV with Siri.
I'm in the third camp. Where are you?
Actually, I'll just do a poll in the Future Hardware forum.
Therefore half- baked at best.
And still no 7.1 audio 1080P etc etc
Also Amazon seems closer to this already with their cloud Kindle Fire model.
Except that content is King- of which Apple doesn't have and Hollywood will never give.
Therefore half- baked at best.
And still no 7.1 audio 1080P etc etc
You can't possibly know what Hollywood will and won't give Apple.
The lack of 1080p now doesn't set that in stone for all eternity.
You can't possibly know what Hollywood will and won't give Apple.
The lack of 1080p now doesn't set that in stone for all eternity.
Would you go backward from a 720P to 480? Thunderbolt to FIREWIRE.?
1080P is the industry HD benchmark except at Apple.
Based on history Hollywood has already given Amazon Hulu and Netflix more. This is why you cannot buy 1080P at iTunes. Hollywood wants to control content and will NOT let Apple take control.
Based on history Hollywood has already given Amazon Hulu and Netflix more. This is why you cannot buy 1080P at iTunes.
Apple isn't Hulu. Apple isn't Amazon. Apple isn't Netflix.
Hollywood wants to control content and will NOT let Apple take control.
Too late.
Not really. Everyone and their brother chided Apple for not including an FM tuner on the iPod (and I would assume iPhone) because you just had to listen to radio. Now, there is things like TuneIn Radio bypassing that spectrum.
I doubt Apple is going to go backwards and include a tuner in such an television. Already, many broadcasters are offering their wares on the Internet. Why wouldn't Apple tap into that?
Because something would be left out? Something big and popular? Like the Beatles were from iTunes?
Everybody and their brother chided Apple for not including an FM tuner on the iPod? Really? Then why did the iPod quickly become #1 - and stay there for a long time? In reality, it was a small number of people who think they're smarter than Apple who were complaining about lack of a tuner.
Besides, the two situations are different. Even by the time the iPod came out, there were a lot of portable players that didn't have radios. Sony had a walkman that played CDs and no radio. The radio is not essential to what the device was made to do - play mp3 tunes downloaded from your computer.
For a TV, the picture (ahem) is different. It's hard to imagine what good a TV would be if it didn't play TV shows off the air or off cable. If you simply want to play stuff that you have on iTunes, you don't need a TV - you simply need a monitor hooked up to your computer. How well have monitors sold compared to TVs? Not very well.
The HDTV industry is currently in a mode where they are tossing everything up on the wall and trying to see what sticks.
I "got" that 120Hz made pictures more fluid ...but couldn't see the point of 240hz and beyond
I "got" that local dimming was the "in" thing even though my eyes couldn't see a big diff.
I "got" that Avatar was great in 3D but I wasn't about to pay extra for goggles at home.
The reason why people aren't upgrading their sets is because there haven't been any major updates to technology other than larger panels. We've been sold on hz and widgets and 3D but that's just not getting consumers to scrap older tech that still works.
New ideas are needed IMO.
I agree. And all of that is compounded by the fact that 3D, at least, is a significant backward step for many people. Not only do you need goggles (which is inconvenient and clumsy), but a significant percentage of people can't see 3D on the TV - and may even get headaches from trying.
Nope.
Apple would lose 1 billion or more in the first quarter alone after an HDTV launch. It's idiotic.
I'm not sold on the idea of an Apple HDTV. I'm starting to see that it's not entirely out of the question, although I think they could get there just as easily by selling and licensing a card to TV manufacturers. But that aside, I'm curious how the heck you managed to come up with that figure. Let's see your detailed P&L projections and the marketing research to support them.
Or are you just playing 'analyst' and pulling numbers out of your rear?
Yep, that's what I thought too. No concept of channels or networks, just shows and movies. Tell it what you want to watch.
You: "I want to watch tonight's Mad Men"
Siri: "Here's tonight's episode of Mad Men"
You: "Play Monday Night Football"
Siri: "The game hasn't started yet, should I change to the game once it does?"
You: "Give me a list of episodes in Community, season 2"
Siri: "Here's a list of the episodes in season two of Community, would you like to watch one?"
That would be awesome.
How about: "What baseball games are playing tonight?" or "What sitcoms are playing?"
However, I could see a couple of problems:
1. Microphone sensitivity and noise reduction would be an issue. You're telling it what to do from across the room - possibly while the TV is already playing.
2. How do they filter out fake signals? For example, you're watching "How I Met Your Mother" and Robin says "let's watch 'Friends'". There has to be a way to filter that out.
3. With a remote, only one person can control it at a time. I could picture that voice activation could turn into a shouting match.
I suppose it might be possible to deal with #1 and #2 by programming it to automatically ignore any sound coming through the system, but it still sounds like quite a challenging technological problem.
I'm not sold on the idea of an Apple HDTV. I'm starting to see that it's not entirely out of the question, although I think they could get there just as easily by selling and licensing a card to TV manufacturers. But that aside, I'm curious how the heck you managed to come up with that figure. Let's see your detailed P&L projections and the marketing research to support them.
Or are you just playing 'analyst' and pulling numbers out of your rear?
Ballparking based on adding up all the factors inherent in creating something like this. You have to guess for R&D and some of it, but it's fairly close.
And I don't mean negative 1 billion revenue, I mean 1 billion LESS revenue than they were expecting otherwise, but even that's sounding WAY too optimistic.
Apple isn't Hulu. Apple isn't Amazon. Apple isn't Netflix.
Too late.
I agree it's too late for apple to get the vast trove of Hollywood content necessary to launch a film streaming service now that SJ is gone. He couldn't even get it even when he was around- not that he didn't try.
Content is King.
I agree it's too late for apple
No, too late for Apple to not take control of the industry.
Its relevant because it is another interface for the TV that won't change with Apple's potential offering. In fact, devices like the XBOX and PS3 would actually dilute the Apple experience... And that is the point of this discussion. If Apple can't control everything aspect of a device (both UI and hardware) there offering simply can't compete.
Nobody should care about the box itself only the content displayed on it (interface, shows, movies, games, etc.) . Your HDTV is like your computer monitor attached to your Mac Mini... A necessary accessory. But that is it.
Why would anyone want an integrated AppleTV with an HDTV is beyond me. Do you really think Apple will support an integrated AppleTV accessory for the life of the TV?
IMO, the cable companies, television studios, and movie studios have no use for Apple. There is no reason why they would threaten their monopolies in dealing with Apple.
The video linked previously sums it up.. The cable companies business model has to change. Once it does, then Apple could introduced some really awesome technology on the scene, but not until the cable companies change....
I'm not so sure about that. If it's a television, then you control the input so you can play your xbox, finish and change the input like any other TV except maybe you do it with Siri-like voice commands instead of a remote. Also, there is a possibility for picture-in-picture. If you're playing your console and stuck in a game, pause it, call up siri for another, smaller screen and get a walkthru from youtube or vimeo then resume game.
Ballparking based on adding up all the factors inherent in creating something like this. You have to guess for R&D and some of it, but it's fairly close.
And I don't mean negative 1 billion revenue, I mean 1 billion LESS revenue than they were expecting otherwise, but even that's sounding WAY too optimistic.
That's absurd.
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell. That's equally ridiculous. You're going to estimate the same $1 B deficiency whether they project $20 in sales or $20 trillion? Wouldn't it require you to know their estimate before you could guess how much they'd miss by?
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
That's absurd.
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell. That's equally ridiculous. You're going to estimate the same $1 B deficiency whether they project $20 in sales or $20 trillion? Wouldn't it require you to know their estimate before you could guess how much they'd miss by?
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
To add to the bolded point, Apple tends to shoot for a certain percentage of an established market to measure success. For example, Steve Jobs said he would be ecstatic if Apple captured 1% of the cell phone market. If Apple decided to release an HDTV, I'm pretty sure its executives have determined not only cost and price point but also how much minimum share it needs to survive (even at "hobby" status).
So if Apple released an HDTV, they're going to sell $1 B less iPads, iPods, iPhones, and Macs? Ridiculous.
Uh? no?
Or maybe you mean that they'll sell $1 B less HDTVs than they think they will sell.
Uh, NO.
I mean to say that the first quarter after the release of an HDTV, Apple would take in at least $1 billion less in revenue than projected prior to the release of said HDTV.
For example, Apple expects 35 billion in revenue this quarter, without an HDTV. If they were to release an HDTV this quarter, I figure they'd wind up with at MOST 34 billion.
Finally, of course, is the issue of who knows more about their markets. If Apple WERE to decide to release an Apple HDTV, it would be on the basis of their belief that they could make it work. Who do you think has been more successful at judging the markets over the past 15 years - you or Apple?
Me, given that I'm judging the market as one that has always had razor-thin margins and where a TV $2,000 more than its counterparts at the same size won't sell, regardless of how good it is.
#apple faithful!