An anticipated Apple high-definition television set, complete with iOS features including Siri voice commands, FaceTime video chat and access to the App Store, would be a strong product in a massive $100 billion market.
Correction:...would enable Apple to siphon off the majority of profits in the new multi-billion market - the Smart TV space.
- Just like Apple invented and now owns the majority of profits in the Tablet market space
- Just like Apple invented and now owns the majority of profits in the Smartphone market space
Steve Jobs was correct. The set top box needs to be torn apart and redesigned from scratch.
I only watch about 10 channels but I have to pay $130.00 for my cable service and Internet. I cut the cord so to speak and now have:
Apple TV (Netflix and iTunes content plus Air Play feature)
Boxee Box (not a good product)
Xbox 360 (to stream ESPN 3 which is the only product at this time that can strean it)
PS3 (for Hulu)
So I have to switch between 4 devices for my content.
Bottom line, it needs to be streamlied. If Apple could allow me to stream Hulu, iTunes, Netlix, ESPN 3 and my stored content on my home network, that would solve a few issues. But, I would still want ESPN and a few other channels which I currently can't get unless I buy a package thru my cable provider.
Face Time, Siri, 1 remote, Games, Internet streaming content, all would be great, but add the content I can't get like ESPN...all for a decent monthly price, I would be interested.
As a owner in the Apple ecosystem (iMac, iPad, iPhone), I would most certainly give the product strong consideration even at a premium. Who am I kidding? I would be one of the 1st peole to pre order. I assmume Apple wouldn't make the mistakes Google did with Google TV and rush it to the market only to slash the price in 1/2 becasue everybody hated it.
The problem is my current TV is lke 20 years old and is seldom turned on. So to even consider a new TV I'd have to see other compelling uses for the display. Given the right features I could see myself going for it, maybe not clamoring though.
Ha! If that's what your usage is like I don't think you personally represent the market
For my sins I work as an electronics engineer coding RTL for IP for SoCs that are used in DTVs. Most, if not all of these are more complicated than Apple's magical A5. They contain multiple CPU cores along with demods, dsps and frcs ( frame rate converters, the things that do all of the 240Hz post processing nonsense ). Coupled with this is platform SW to tie the entire system together.
Yeah I could see where working on TVs would be a sin. Not so much for the hardware but rather the industry they get attached to.
Quote:
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
So how did Intel and Broadcom kill the DTV industry?
Quote:
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
A businessman I once knew said to go into business selling things people want, not what they need. People often need lawn mowers but never invest much money in them. People want iPhone thus throw money at Apple. If Apple can get people to want such a TV then they can stamp any reasonable price on the device. The trick there is in the software.
This will fail if you can't "cut the cord" to the cable and satellite providers for TV programming. It's what Steve DIDN'T want. He always said that unless you reinvented the entire chain and get rid of the extra boxes and remotes that it would not succeed and I agree 100%.
Of course the cable monopolies will just up their charges for broadband internet...
Bill
So this tells you what's going to happen doesn't it? Apple will cut that cord and reinvent the chain otherwise its not worth shipping. Once they have the service in order, in whatever exact form it may take shape, that's when this thing will ship. They are not limited on hardware or software technology. The bottleneck has been and probably is services.
So you can bet this will get resolved. Who knows what that will look like exactly, I'm sure it will be obvious to all of us after it happens.
I'm fully entrenched in the Apple Ecosystem and I don't think I'd buy one. I have a 48" Sony that is only 3 years old. I've only bought two tv's in the last 12 years. Hooking a $99 appletv up to my tv works for me personally. I wonder how many folks are clamoring for this? Maybe they don't know they want it yet?
I've intentionally waited to buy an HDTV until Apple gets into the game. They'll push better panel solutions from the current players who keep selling substandard parts with premium prices.
Not portable enough for me. Other than than the Mac Pro and iMac's everything else Apple has sold is portable. This isn't.
It might gain traction because it is made by Apple over the short term but long term it won't be worth it, unless of course you can fold it up and take it to some place remote and set it up in less than two minutes and use it with a solar panel and is connected via satellite feed.
Interesting observation however Apples bid for the living room does not target that demographic since the living room isn't portable. The trend toward mobile computing by younger generations is an interesting phenomena though. I wonder if the current economic crisis and the lack of affordable housing has forced young people in to sharing smaller spaces with more roommates or living with parents longer, which in turn makes staying at home less desirable and therefore may explain the popularity of mobile computing.
Personally I can't wait to get home and enjoy my privacy. Some weekends I don't even leave my house and outdoor space at all.
Yeah I could see where working on TVs would be a sin. Not so much for the hardware but rather the industry they get attached to.
So how did Intel and Broadcom kill the DTV industry?
A businessman I once knew said to go into business selling things people want, not what they need. People often need lawn mowers but never invest much money in them. People want iPhone thus throw money at Apple. If Apple can get people to want such a TV then they can stamp any reasonable price on the device. The trick there is in the software.
"Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs"
You misunderstood. Intel and Broadcom killed their respective DTV SoC development because it was not profitable based on the required R&D. They themselves did not kill the industry, the likes of Samsung and the demand for lower and lower prices for consumer electronics did that.
The problem in the development of SoCs is that no one wants to pay for the SW. This isn't the application SW, middleware or even OS. This is the SoC specific platform SW which enables all the IP on the chip to work together. It has to be developed and maintained by the semi company and is now a high proportion of the overall R&D.
"Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs"
You misunderstood. Intel and Broadcom killed their respective DTV SoC development because it was not profitable based on the required R&D. They themselves did not kill the industry, the likes of Samsung and the demand for lower and lower prices for consumer electronics did that.
The problem in the development of SoCs is that no one wants to pay for the SW. This isn't the application SW, middleware or even OS. This is the SoC specific platform SW which enables all the IP on the chip to work together. It has to be developed and maintained by the semi company and is now a high proportion of the overall R&D.
Apple will bypass Intel when they make this a reality. They'll use Broadcom only for parts necessary to make their solution complete.
<<Last month, the former president of Apple?s product division, Jean-Louis Gassée, declared that the Apple smart TV ?is exciting and so obvious it?s got to happen.? Steve Jobs? biography suggests that the co-founder of Apple felt that way, too.>>
An anticipated Apple high-definition television set, complete with iOS features including Siri voice commands, FaceTime video chat and access to the App Store, would be a strong product in a massive $100 billion market.
New interfaces always create new hardware categories:
- "Finder" is the interface in mouse driven Macintosh hardware
- "Touch" is the interface for finger driven iPhone & iPad hardware
- "Siri" is Apple's new interface for a new category of voice driven hardware
A new interface, if widely adopted, becomes that platforms first "Killer App."
Killer Apps sells killer hardware.
Siri is truly the next Killer App. Have you played with Siri yet? It may not be perfect today, but it is sure a lot of fun - it's intuitive, wonderfully entertaining and my kids really love it. I believe that after several SW evolutions, Siri will emerge with a personality that "wonderfully clicks" with the majority of buyers who purchase a voice-driven device.
Siri is the Killer App that will allow Apple to harvest the majority of profits in the voice-driven Smart TV market space.
Indications from Apple is they'll be a TV but it's only from one analyst that it'll be expensive. Take a 1080P TV and stick a $99 Apple TV in it. Apple wants to sell content through the TV's - there's no reason to sell them for a high price. Monitors cost more because they have a MUCH higher pixel density.
I'm a mac fan and have invested in many of apple's products. But unless this thing can beat the picture on my Pioneer Elite Kuro Plasma (which I doubt), then I would pass.
Comments
An anticipated Apple high-definition television set, complete with iOS features including Siri voice commands, FaceTime video chat and access to the App Store, would be a strong product in a massive $100 billion market.
Correction:...would enable Apple to siphon off the majority of profits in the new multi-billion market - the Smart TV space.
- Just like Apple invented and now owns the majority of profits in the Tablet market space
- Just like Apple invented and now owns the majority of profits in the Smartphone market space
Outstanding, Steve has done it again.
Apple stock at $1000 share, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_Hi-Fi
so I won't get too excited yet.
I only watch about 10 channels but I have to pay $130.00 for my cable service and Internet. I cut the cord so to speak and now have:
Apple TV (Netflix and iTunes content plus Air Play feature)
Boxee Box (not a good product)
Xbox 360 (to stream ESPN 3 which is the only product at this time that can strean it)
PS3 (for Hulu)
So I have to switch between 4 devices for my content.
Bottom line, it needs to be streamlied. If Apple could allow me to stream Hulu, iTunes, Netlix, ESPN 3 and my stored content on my home network, that would solve a few issues. But, I would still want ESPN and a few other channels which I currently can't get unless I buy a package thru my cable provider.
Face Time, Siri, 1 remote, Games, Internet streaming content, all would be great, but add the content I can't get like ESPN...all for a decent monthly price, I would be interested.
As a owner in the Apple ecosystem (iMac, iPad, iPhone), I would most certainly give the product strong consideration even at a premium. Who am I kidding? I would be one of the 1st peole to pre order. I assmume Apple wouldn't make the mistakes Google did with Google TV and rush it to the market only to slash the price in 1/2 becasue everybody hated it.
The problem is my current TV is lke 20 years old and is seldom turned on. So to even consider a new TV I'd have to see other compelling uses for the display. Given the right features I could see myself going for it, maybe not clamoring though.
Ha! If that's what your usage is like I don't think you personally represent the market
For my sins I work as an electronics engineer coding RTL for IP for SoCs that are used in DTVs. Most, if not all of these are more complicated than Apple's magical A5. They contain multiple CPU cores along with demods, dsps and frcs ( frame rate converters, the things that do all of the 240Hz post processing nonsense ). Coupled with this is platform SW to tie the entire system together.
Yeah I could see where working on TVs would be a sin. Not so much for the hardware but rather the industry they get attached to.
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
So how did Intel and Broadcom kill the DTV industry?
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
A businessman I once knew said to go into business selling things people want, not what they need. People often need lawn mowers but never invest much money in them. People want iPhone thus throw money at Apple. If Apple can get people to want such a TV then they can stamp any reasonable price on the device. The trick there is in the software.
This will fail if you can't "cut the cord" to the cable and satellite providers for TV programming. It's what Steve DIDN'T want. He always said that unless you reinvented the entire chain and get rid of the extra boxes and remotes that it would not succeed and I agree 100%.
Of course the cable monopolies will just up their charges for broadband internet...
Bill
So this tells you what's going to happen doesn't it? Apple will cut that cord and reinvent the chain otherwise its not worth shipping. Once they have the service in order, in whatever exact form it may take shape, that's when this thing will ship. They are not limited on hardware or software technology. The bottleneck has been and probably is services.
So you can bet this will get resolved. Who knows what that will look like exactly, I'm sure it will be obvious to all of us after it happens.
I'm fully entrenched in the Apple Ecosystem and I don't think I'd buy one. I have a 48" Sony that is only 3 years old. I've only bought two tv's in the last 12 years. Hooking a $99 appletv up to my tv works for me personally. I wonder how many folks are clamoring for this? Maybe they don't know they want it yet?
I've intentionally waited to buy an HDTV until Apple gets into the game. They'll push better panel solutions from the current players who keep selling substandard parts with premium prices.
Not portable enough for me. Other than than the Mac Pro and iMac's everything else Apple has sold is portable. This isn't.
It might gain traction because it is made by Apple over the short term but long term it won't be worth it, unless of course you can fold it up and take it to some place remote and set it up in less than two minutes and use it with a solar panel and is connected via satellite feed.
Interesting observation however Apples bid for the living room does not target that demographic since the living room isn't portable. The trend toward mobile computing by younger generations is an interesting phenomena though. I wonder if the current economic crisis and the lack of affordable housing has forced young people in to sharing smaller spaces with more roommates or living with parents longer, which in turn makes staying at home less desirable and therefore may explain the popularity of mobile computing.
Personally I can't wait to get home and enjoy my privacy. Some weekends I don't even leave my house and outdoor space at all.
Yeah I could see where working on TVs would be a sin. Not so much for the hardware but rather the industry they get attached to.
So how did Intel and Broadcom kill the DTV industry?
A businessman I once knew said to go into business selling things people want, not what they need. People often need lawn mowers but never invest much money in them. People want iPhone thus throw money at Apple. If Apple can get people to want such a TV then they can stamp any reasonable price on the device. The trick there is in the software.
"Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs"
You misunderstood. Intel and Broadcom killed their respective DTV SoC development because it was not profitable based on the required R&D. They themselves did not kill the industry, the likes of Samsung and the demand for lower and lower prices for consumer electronics did that.
The problem in the development of SoCs is that no one wants to pay for the SW. This isn't the application SW, middleware or even OS. This is the SoC specific platform SW which enables all the IP on the chip to work together. It has to be developed and maintained by the semi company and is now a high proportion of the overall R&D.
"Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs"
You misunderstood. Intel and Broadcom killed their respective DTV SoC development because it was not profitable based on the required R&D. They themselves did not kill the industry, the likes of Samsung and the demand for lower and lower prices for consumer electronics did that.
The problem in the development of SoCs is that no one wants to pay for the SW. This isn't the application SW, middleware or even OS. This is the SoC specific platform SW which enables all the IP on the chip to work together. It has to be developed and maintained by the semi company and is now a high proportion of the overall R&D.
Apple will bypass Intel when they make this a reality. They'll use Broadcom only for parts necessary to make their solution complete.
<<Last month, the former president of Apple?s product division, Jean-Louis Gassée, declared that the Apple smart TV ?is exciting and so obvious it?s got to happen.? Steve Jobs? biography suggests that the co-founder of Apple felt that way, too.>>
http://www.macworld.com/article/1632...#lsrc.rss_main
The question isn't do you want one, the question is - does Apple feel there are enough people who will want one.
If you have to accept the Apple ecosystem and buy content from them, this will be a non-starter. We are not veals in cages.
Exactly. Just like the iPad/iPhone. Who would ever buy one of those and be a veal?
An anticipated Apple high-definition television set, complete with iOS features including Siri voice commands, FaceTime video chat and access to the App Store, would be a strong product in a massive $100 billion market.
New interfaces always create new hardware categories:
- "Finder" is the interface in mouse driven Macintosh hardware
- "Touch" is the interface for finger driven iPhone & iPad hardware
- "Siri" is Apple's new interface for a new category of voice driven hardware
A new interface, if widely adopted, becomes that platforms first "Killer App."
Killer Apps sells killer hardware.
Siri is truly the next Killer App. Have you played with Siri yet? It may not be perfect today, but it is sure a lot of fun - it's intuitive, wonderfully entertaining and my kids really love it. I believe that after several SW evolutions, Siri will emerge with a personality that "wonderfully clicks" with the majority of buyers who purchase a voice-driven device.
Siri is the Killer App that will allow Apple to harvest the majority of profits in the voice-driven Smart TV market space.
I just could not resist:
Siri will emerge with a personality that "wonderfully clicks" with the majority of buyers who purchase a voice-driven device.
I wonder if Siri's "personality" will stay the same with iOS 6 or will she all of a sudden be different.
People don't like change when it comes to personal assistants. Reminds me of Ozzy and his assistants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tav5Fhs8hs