Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly stated that it can't exist with the today's market until that is cracked. You and others seem to be defending the point that slapping an AppleTV in a TV would inherently make it great.
I've been asking since this rumor appears how they could change this tightly integrated relationships yet all I ever get is that an Apple branded TV would be awesome because it would have an Apple logo or reduce the clutter of one device. That isn't revolutionary at all and GoogleTV has shown that the networks are willing to fight swiftly and fiercely for their guaranteed revenue streams when threatened.
It all depends on whether Apple want to "iPod" the TV market or "iMac" the TV market.
For a true TV revolution (and for Apple to "iPod" the market) the hardware is only half the solution. Apple would need access to the content as well and, depending on where you live in the world, the ability to deliver that content.
However, I don't think the content owners and cable companies will ever hand control over to Apple in the way that Apple need them to. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible for Apple to completely revolutionize the TV market, but for it to occur Apple would need to take some pretty drastic actions (like buying Disney and Comcast) so I think it's unlikely.
That said, I don't think it's impossible for Apple to work with existing players in the market. Have a look at what Microsoft are doing with TV on the Xbox and how it integrates with Kinect.
Whilst it's not the perfect solution everyone wants, the ability to launch a "Comcast" or "Verizon FiOS" app on your Apple TV (or iPad for that matter) and access the content that way is much better than using a separate cable box.
Where I've changed my opinion is that I think it's worth it for Apple to "iMac" the TV market. By that I mean they could create a premium "Smart TV" that works within the Apple ecosystem. This would allow them to skim the cream off the top of the market, maintaining profit margins, and let the existing TV manufacturers fight it out in the rest of the (low margin) market.
To do this Apple don't need to revolutionize the TV market. They just need to offer a compelling device that integrates well with the existing Apple eco-system.
if the composite image in the article is suggesting audio receiver functionality (and connectivity) is integrated into the proposed Apple Television, the author doesn't know much about home theatre equipment. also, implying iTunes Store content matches, in fidelity, to the content available on pre-recorded Blu-ray media is a bit misleading.
A TV is just a computer with a tuner instead of a motherboard.
While I never use smileys, I think there is an appropriate one for that statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
It used to be that computer monitors were higher quality than TV screens. But now, lots of TV screens (most?) are 1080P, which is higher rez than most computers.
Really now? I see mostly 1200 or more pixels on a computer screen, while TV's with more than 2MP are hard to find. And besides that; they are totally different screens, not comparable. TV pixels are rectangular, computer screen pixels are square.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV.
Lame post alert!
Perhaps that is why Apple is going to create wider stores from now on?
Upper West Side store: 54 feet tall, 75 feet wide and 30 feet deep: AI article
St. Louis Galleria (Mo.) 55 feet wide: ifoapplestore
It's an old issue; back in 2005 the stores were getting 'smelly'
But I agree that they will make way more money on iDevices than on large TV's with the whole 'size-hassle'.
The graphic used in the article doesn't make a whole lot of sense - there's no way Apple would sell a $2,000 TV plus subscription for the following reason:
Currently Apple sells a 27" Cinema display for $999, which is far smaller than even the 40" mentioned. So they'd have to source 60" 1080p panels and be able to machine a 60" aluminium chassis in a cost-effective way with a universal mounting so it can be fixed to the wall.
They may figure this out and launch a full TV but like the rumours of the early Mac Pro, the discontinuation of the Mini, the iPhone-Mini, the iPhone 5, the iPad-Mini, the early launch of the iPad 3 etc, etc, I just don't buy it.
IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]
I disagree with that, but I can see why you might say it. You likely say it mostly because of the initial reach the iPad got, but the iPad was a new category and was unproven. The TV business is far more like the phone business; essentially a broken business with crappy products and dumb software, and the initial reaction of the iPhone was very positive. I see iTV being very similar. Clearly Apple's hurdle is content, if they get the content then years of planning, design and R&D will create a revolution.
IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.
Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first model of Apple TV box that isn't considered a "hobby" to them, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you].
And I'll bet absolutely anything that my reaction WILL be one of INSTANT SUCCESS.
Any Apple plan that takes the current definition of "television content service", kicks it in the genitals, and then sets it on fire and grows a new definition out of its ashes is GOING to succeed.
Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.
It's difficult to get apps onto a TV using a remote. I don't see this happening at all unless they can figure out a way to build a cheap touch-based remote. Either that or have a new category of very basic apps that act like conduits for media/channels.
The benefit of the iMac is that for productivity, you get faster processors, better GPUs, more storage, a good quality bundled screen that you wouldn't necessarily have vs the Mini but an all-in-one TV offers no such benefit vs the TV because people generally have a decent TV already.
A big part of the problem I see is how to sell it. How do you sell a new TV to a world that is tired of television content and the already saturated TV market? How do you convince people who have invested in a nice display to throw it away? Even the best presenters at Apple will have a tough job taking the stage and proclaiming they have reinvented the television.
The biggest hurdle they have to overcome is content. All people want is good content, everything else just needs to get out the way. A new device, especially an expensive one is not the answer.
All the devices people use are solutions to problems. The cable box is there to supply disposable content to users who pay a subscription. The shows are packed with advertising to make it cost-effective because people wouldn't pay a ridiculous subscription charge. Blu-Ray players are there for HD content for people who don't have great internet services or where VOD services aren't offered and also for movie ownership. The DVR is there to backup disposable TV when it doesn't fit into our schedule.
To clear the set, they just have to tackle each and every one of those problems. They can allow you to buy to own and stream owned movies in 1080p but rented movies in 720p with a high enough bitrate that it replaces Blu-Ray. They can the app route for live/disposable content via apps/channels and they can subsidise it with iAd-like advertising during the shows or charge extra using pay-per-minute or subscriptions. The DVR functionality can work like ownership in that shows get stored temporarily in your online account to be streamed when you choose.
For content, they need to find a way to maintain a library that matches the largest library of their biggest competitors in every country, even if that means partnering up with them.
But again, none of that needs the panel, just the tiny $99 box.
The picture in the article makes the AppleTV $66 cheaper than the full system on the left, but:
won't you need an audio receiver to power the sound going to the speakers anyways? (or is piper jaffray implying the Apple product will have an integrated amplifier?)
Can you really compare BluRay to iTunes' 720p?
Doesn't Comcast have cheaper plans than $85? Especially since the Comcast $85 plan probably has absurdly more channels than the Apple product will have?
Can you really compare the AppleTV's gaming (scaled up iPad games?) to a $249 console?
Does anyone really expect Apple's $50-90 subscription to have unlimited DVD rentals and a TV package comparable to Comcast?
What I'm expecting here is an Apple Cinema display with a built-in AppleTV, to be launched around the same time as apple gets it's next contract sorted out with the TV/Film studios. Built-in 1TB hard drive to hold an entire iTunes collections, web surfing, AirPort, etc.
This will be another shot at eliminating the PC from the average PC user's home (trying to make the standard casual web user/emailer's home into an iPad/AppleTV combo instead of PC/HDTV combo).
Comments
Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly stated that it can't exist with the today's market until that is cracked. You and others seem to be defending the point that slapping an AppleTV in a TV would inherently make it great.
I've been asking since this rumor appears how they could change this tightly integrated relationships yet all I ever get is that an Apple branded TV would be awesome because it would have an Apple logo or reduce the clutter of one device. That isn't revolutionary at all and GoogleTV has shown that the networks are willing to fight swiftly and fiercely for their guaranteed revenue streams when threatened.
It all depends on whether Apple want to "iPod" the TV market or "iMac" the TV market.
For a true TV revolution (and for Apple to "iPod" the market) the hardware is only half the solution. Apple would need access to the content as well and, depending on where you live in the world, the ability to deliver that content.
However, I don't think the content owners and cable companies will ever hand control over to Apple in the way that Apple need them to. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible for Apple to completely revolutionize the TV market, but for it to occur Apple would need to take some pretty drastic actions (like buying Disney and Comcast) so I think it's unlikely.
That said, I don't think it's impossible for Apple to work with existing players in the market. Have a look at what Microsoft are doing with TV on the Xbox and how it integrates with Kinect.
Whilst it's not the perfect solution everyone wants, the ability to launch a "Comcast" or "Verizon FiOS" app on your Apple TV (or iPad for that matter) and access the content that way is much better than using a separate cable box.
Where I've changed my opinion is that I think it's worth it for Apple to "iMac" the TV market. By that I mean they could create a premium "Smart TV" that works within the Apple ecosystem. This would allow them to skim the cream off the top of the market, maintaining profit margins, and let the existing TV manufacturers fight it out in the rest of the (low margin) market.
To do this Apple don't need to revolutionize the TV market. They just need to offer a compelling device that integrates well with the existing Apple eco-system.
A TV is just a computer with a tuner instead of a motherboard.
While I never use smileys, I think there is an appropriate one for that statement:
It used to be that computer monitors were higher quality than TV screens. But now, lots of TV screens (most?) are 1080P, which is higher rez than most computers.
Really now? I see mostly 1200 or more pixels on a computer screen, while TV's with more than 2MP are hard to find. And besides that; they are totally different screens, not comparable. TV pixels are rectangular, computer screen pixels are square.
Consider how many iPads and iPhone can fit into the space or a single 50" HDTV box. Now consider the revenue and profit of all those devices compared to a single HDTV.
Lame post alert!
Perhaps that is why Apple is going to create wider stores from now on?
Upper West Side store: 54 feet tall, 75 feet wide and 30 feet deep: AI article
St. Louis Galleria (Mo.) 55 feet wide: ifoapplestore
It's an old issue; back in 2005 the stores were getting 'smelly'
But I agree that they will make way more money on iDevices than on large TV's with the whole 'size-hassle'.
Cheers,
PhilBoogie
Currently Apple sells a 27" Cinema display for $999, which is far smaller than even the 40" mentioned. So they'd have to source 60" 1080p panels and be able to machine a 60" aluminium chassis in a cost-effective way with a universal mounting so it can be fixed to the wall.
They may figure this out and launch a full TV but like the rumours of the early Mac Pro, the discontinuation of the Mini, the iPhone-Mini, the iPhone 5, the iPad-Mini, the early launch of the iPad 3 etc, etc, I just don't buy it.
IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]
I disagree with that, but I can see why you might say it. You likely say it mostly because of the initial reach the iPad got, but the iPad was a new category and was unproven. The TV business is far more like the phone business; essentially a broken business with crappy products and dumb software, and the initial reaction of the iPhone was very positive. I see iTV being very similar. Clearly Apple's hurdle is content, if they get the content then years of planning, design and R&D will create a revolution.
IMO, the TV is the key just like the Mini itself (only Mac with HDMI). Modularity is the only way they can fit into the home theatre setup.
Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first model of Apple TV box that isn't considered a "hobby" to them, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you].
And I'll bet absolutely anything that my reaction WILL be one of INSTANT SUCCESS.
Any Apple plan that takes the current definition of "television content service", kicks it in the genitals, and then sets it on fire and grows a new definition out of its ashes is GOING to succeed.
Currently Apple sells a 27" Cinema display for $999, which is far smaller than even the 40" mentioned.
Smaller, yes, but the pixel count and density is considerably higher than HDTVs hence making them considerably more costly per square inch.
Keeping with the Mac mini analogy; Apple has the mini as their entrance desktop Mac and the iMac are their all-in-one. The Apple TV would be their entrance TV product and iTV would be their all-in-one - with an App Store.
It's difficult to get apps onto a TV using a remote. I don't see this happening at all unless they can figure out a way to build a cheap touch-based remote. Either that or have a new category of very basic apps that act like conduits for media/channels.
The benefit of the iMac is that for productivity, you get faster processors, better GPUs, more storage, a good quality bundled screen that you wouldn't necessarily have vs the Mini but an all-in-one TV offers no such benefit vs the TV because people generally have a decent TV already.
A big part of the problem I see is how to sell it. How do you sell a new TV to a world that is tired of television content and the already saturated TV market? How do you convince people who have invested in a nice display to throw it away? Even the best presenters at Apple will have a tough job taking the stage and proclaiming they have reinvented the television.
The biggest hurdle they have to overcome is content. All people want is good content, everything else just needs to get out the way. A new device, especially an expensive one is not the answer.
All the devices people use are solutions to problems. The cable box is there to supply disposable content to users who pay a subscription. The shows are packed with advertising to make it cost-effective because people wouldn't pay a ridiculous subscription charge. Blu-Ray players are there for HD content for people who don't have great internet services or where VOD services aren't offered and also for movie ownership. The DVR is there to backup disposable TV when it doesn't fit into our schedule.
To clear the set, they just have to tackle each and every one of those problems. They can allow you to buy to own and stream owned movies in 1080p but rented movies in 720p with a high enough bitrate that it replaces Blu-Ray. They can the app route for live/disposable content via apps/channels and they can subsidise it with iAd-like advertising during the shows or charge extra using pay-per-minute or subscriptions. The DVR functionality can work like ownership in that shows get stored temporarily in your online account to be streamed when you choose.
For content, they need to find a way to maintain a library that matches the largest library of their biggest competitors in every country, even if that means partnering up with them.
But again, none of that needs the panel, just the tiny $99 box.
won't you need an audio receiver to power the sound going to the speakers anyways? (or is piper jaffray implying the Apple product will have an integrated amplifier?)
Can you really compare BluRay to iTunes' 720p?
Doesn't Comcast have cheaper plans than $85? Especially since the Comcast $85 plan probably has absurdly more channels than the Apple product will have?
Can you really compare the AppleTV's gaming (scaled up iPad games?) to a $249 console?
Does anyone really expect Apple's $50-90 subscription to have unlimited DVD rentals and a TV package comparable to Comcast?
What I'm expecting here is an Apple Cinema display with a built-in AppleTV, to be launched around the same time as apple gets it's next contract sorted out with the TV/Film studios. Built-in 1TB hard drive to hold an entire iTunes collections, web surfing, AirPort, etc.
This will be another shot at eliminating the PC from the average PC user's home (trying to make the standard casual web user/emailer's home into an iPad/AppleTV combo instead of PC/HDTV combo).