Was reading the comments on the Globe and Mail. Apparently most people have no idea how undoable it is to deliver live feed over the net. Neither Cable or DSL are even close to have the bandwight for it.
What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.
What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.
Thats doable because there network is build for it. I know EU use IPTV a lot, thats why its such a good idea for Apple to use that tech, its an international spec.
I had the lag in the first month but they fix that. I don't know how they did it in Eu, but here we have a compress feed with all channels for the guide PiP. Once you select a channel, its quick but you are watching the compress feed until the stream is setup. Unfortunately, sometimes after 8 secs the stream is still not setup yet and the image freeze. Happen to me yesterday, image froze for about 2 secs. Need to call them about it because I haven't seen this in months.
If this is real, then it must be something completely unexpected and from further afield than any other Apple product ever known. If true it will be more surprising that their most surprising product announcement (the iPod), which was only surprising because it was an entirely new kind of device for them at the time. An Apple TV is not that. It's an expected extension of their current business.
I thought that that is a given.
Quote:
Jobs: I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,’ he told me. ‘It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.’ No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. ‘It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.
Certainly a 42" iOS 5+ "iPad' TV doesn't seem impossible. Thinner than it is now. Powered and connected to your cable box via Thunderbolt. And if I could view and pay for specific content on demand without having to buy a package of channels I will never watch…
Right now, and like many a family, we use (actually are more engrossed in) our iPads for entertainment/news than our TVs. Considering that the iPhone was an extension of the iPad, what is to say that the Apple 'TV' won't be as well. But this time going larger.
And if the rumored 42"'r comes in under $1500, there will be lineups like we have never seen before.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I have DirecTV and am quite happy with it. UI is not complicated at all. Offers just about anything I want. Remote control works just fine. Not sure what Apple could bring to the party that would make me switch. I certainly wouldn't be forking out $1,500 for a new TV set.
Seems to me that the only way this can work is if Apple offers both a TV that is designed from the ground up to work seamlessly with the service it wants to provide and to offer something similar to the current Apple TV box to allow customers who are not in the market for a new TV access to the same functionality.
I have a four-year-old LCD in one room and plan on replacing the other TV in the home in about two or three years. If Apple wants me for a customer in less than those two years and, for that matter, to have access to this new service on both my TVs, there has to be an external box available that makes that possible.
We have two TVs in our household, which is likely typical, but I'm sure some households have even more. It would be unlikely that service providers like Rogers and Bell, here in Canada, would sign on to offer a service that would require one to replace all of one's TVs with Apple units undoubtedly costing more than your average set. On the other hand, if Apple had a system developed that could work with existing TVs coupled with a set-top box, this would be perceived to be a business opportunity by Rogers, Bell and similar service providers. They could make money either renting out or selling outright said boxes, just as they do now with PVRs and the like. Technically, if the existing set is basically a monitor attached to Apple`s controller unit, one should be able to do with it what one could do with an integrated Apple unit.
I can`t imagine that this can be achieved any other way. It is simply not viable for Apple to try and establish a new service while expecting consumers to replace all their TVs in order to buy in. It is especially problematic that there are an awful lot of recent-vintage big-screen sets sitting in people`s homes right now. In this tough economic environment, few if any of us are likely to ditch two-, three-, four-year-old TVs. No, I think what we`re going to get is a much-enhanced Apple TV set-top box combined with an Apple branded set that integrates said box.
I would further speculate that if this story has validity to it (the Globe and Mail is arguably Canada`s most respected newspaper) what Rogers and Bell have in their labs is not an Apple set but rather the enhanced Apple TV set-top box. If this box is close to being released, testing by the service providers who would offer it makes a lot of sense. And if this story is now leaked, I`m guessing we`re real close to having this box come to market, perhaps as early as next month. If it is a unit costing similar to a PVR and will allow consumers to subscribe to an ala carte service, it has good potential. With an installed base of some weight, it would only increase the market over the long haul for an Apple set with the set-top functionality built in.
ATV's biggest problem is content. The baulkanised content creators.
Basically, a giant iPad. Siri, apps, facetime, decent screen quality, the eco system bonus, game system with PS3 quality graphics thereabouts if you have the A6 included.
But you still need content.
I did the netflix thing and watched a movie on an iPad 2. Pretty decent service. Still not enough content.
Still, they managed it with iTunes. Hollywood has been a harder obstacle to manoeuvre.
It's content, managing that content...in the iOS/iTunes ecosystem.
They could the phone subsidise model. But the TV upgrade would have to be compelling along with the software.
Standalone vs all in one. Guess they may do both.
I have a 50 inch Panasonic £699 plasma. ST30. Great at watching movies. It's smart tv aspect is very rubbish though.
ie Software. And that's where Apple has the whole industry beaten.
Have an iPad 3 to airplay via Atv 3? or the complete box and channels controlled by any iDevice?
It's a proposition.
People didn't understand the overpriced iPod/iPhone etc.
I'll be very interested to see the final product. Standalone or all in one.
At the very least an iPad 3 and ATV3 standalone are in my sight.
Try surfing the web via a PS3 or Panasonic. Painful. Apple can't do any worse. At the very least, I'd take an ATV3 and iPad3 to make the Panasonic more useful as a big screen multimedia device care of the iOS devices.
The ATV2 offers some insight. As does iOS , the iPad and whole iOS/iTunes ecosystem.
It's about the bringing it all together...and a content partnership with a cable company (eg like they did with the phone companies like ATT...) or Hollywood. They only have to get one company to crack and when the money starts pouring in...it will be game over.
As for price. All and sundry thought £1000 for an iPad. Apple smashed that preconception with the £399.
Thats why I was asking if they had land lines. I have no idea I don't live in the US. If those leaks are true Apple is moving for an IPTV device, which makes sense because its next gen tech.
You and I have been saying if it happens, this is how it will happen. Here's hoping were right- id but one for sure. No AT&T program guide? Sign me up.
...to compete with the upcoming Google/Motorola company and their access to the living room. Apple has a small window of opportunity to partner with cable companies and develop a compelling alternative to the end runaround that Google will pull off shortly. Google TV? Oh yeah - on every Motorola setup box.
I like my content (DirecTV - loads of 1080i). I DO NOT want to have streaming 480 and 720 net based content. Netflix streaming? Yeah...simply fantastic. (No.) Crappy picture, buffering, network hog. (Yes, I use it. LOL)
Dear Apple,
Please put your lovely box and interface in my living room, as part of my tv watching experience. Change the way I watch or think about TV.
...to compete with the upcoming Google/Motorola company and their access to the living room. Apple has a small window of opportunity to partner with cable companies and develop a compelling alternative to the end runaround that Google will pull off shortly. Google TV? Oh yeah - on every Motorola setup box.
oh man I have Motorola box, I hope Apple will offer there box with Bell IPTV. On the other hand, android would be a big improvement over Bell custom ecosystem. BTW those box are currently running windows CE. Microsoft is losing again.
I would further speculate that if this story has validity to it (the Globe and Mail is arguably Canada`s most respected newspaper) what Rogers and Bell have in their labs is not an Apple set but rather the enhanced Apple TV set-top box. If this box is close to being released, testing by the service providers who would offer it makes a lot of sense. And if this story is now leaked, I`m guessing we`re real close to having this box come to market, perhaps as early as next month. If it is a unit costing similar to a PVR and will allow consumers to subscribe to an ala carte service, it has good potential. With an installed base of some weight, it would only increase the market over the long haul for an Apple set with the set-top functionality built in.
Really, how could this go any other way.
they have both imo, a set-top box and an actual Apple TV set.
Hopefully the competition will be like you and still don't get it. Has long has Google still tries to bypass cable and deliver internet only TV feeds we are ok, damage is not so bad. Thats its, they are just making another ATV2.
Aside from being bad grammar and not making any sense. What exactly was that all about?
If you are so smart, explain why the TV cannot be separate from the box controlling it?
That to me is the million dollar question, and the one that remains unanswered. The only rumor that has alluded to a feature apple could actually offer the tv itself was that patent which allowed the remote to magically learn all of the connected devices.
Exactly. But, I don't understand why the electronics covered in this patent could not reside in an external Apple box rather than in the TV.
Apple TV is a device that moves the increasing intelligence and connectedness that people want in a viewing experience into an external box that works with any TV. iTV appears, from the rumours only though, to place these capabilities into the TV itself, limiting it's availability to TV's produced by Apple. The value proposition provided by an iTV will have to be pretty awesome for Apple to choose to sell a high-ticket item like an iTV with much lower margins than an Apple TV with very high margins. Likely Apple with go both ways and will enhance Apple TV at an increased price to provide iTV features to non-Apple TV's and provide iTV as a total solution to those who want to pay a higher price.
Right now, Apple TV is so easy to use with my 65" Panasonic Plasma that I can't see ditching this $3,000 TV and Apple TV just so I can have voice and gesture recognition. Nor do I see all my favourite cable TV channels all being available a la carte all of a sudden.
Hey, quick question that is sort of relevant. Is the term 'Canuck' offensive? I suppose it depends on the context, but I'm asking about the inherent meaning of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple II Plus
If you are so smart, explain why the TV cannot be separate from the box controlling it?
No, that's what he's saying. He doesn't believe there'll be a TV, simply another Apple TV box. And I'm all for that.
Thats why I was asking if they had land lines. I have no idea I don't live in the US. If those leaks are true Apple is moving for an IPTV device, which makes sense because its next gen tech.
Rogers offers cable TV, cable internet, cable phone and mobile devices (and was the first to offer the iPhone here in Canada), but not telco type land lines. They are likely testing iTV, if that is even true, in order to provide some of their cable feeds to iTV over the internet on an a la carte basis as a test. I doubt very much they'd open the kimono on the encryption in their PVR/DVR & cable boxes thus allowing their cable to be plugged directly into iTV and render their high priced (whether rented or bought) cable boxes to be rendered unnecessary. The same in the US with their encrypted PVR & DVR cable boxes. These companies cannot ignore Apple but they are going to tread into this area softly as there is a lot of bulk revenue derived from cable packages (where you have to subscribe to a bunch of stations at one time) at stake that is likely to decline if a la carte single channel, individual TV show or TV series offerings are available.
I'm sorry, and I know there are tons of theories, but I don't believe for a second that this new TV will include a display.
The current TV is $99.
Most TV manufacturers are losing money selling TVs
Since there is no profit in a display, Apple is not going to integrate TV with a display.
Consumers will put 2+2 together....
An average price for a much better than average 50" display is about $2000, give or take a couple hundred.
+
TV costs (in its current form) $99
Then the consumer will start scratching their collective heads and say: "Hey, why am I buying this integrated TV for $3500 (which is what Apple will have to sell it for in order to keep their gross margin at ~40%) when I can get a display and an TV separately and save $1200-1300?"
I just don't buy it.
IMHO, I think it's going to be a beautiful little box (similar to the current form) with a lot of magical goodness inside (in the form of a specialized iOS) and the killer app is how you control it. That's what Steve "cracked".
Sale price.......$299
I agree with you. The economics of an integrated display do not make sense and even with the added value proposition of the features that Apple may include there is no way they can increase the price of the TV enough over existing displays to achieve the margins they require.
It will be outside of the box at an increased price, as you predict.
Maybe, but my guess is that there are enough people out there that would rather have an Apple designed and spec'd television set where the whole experience is an Apple experience. The tv manufacturers are already trying their hardest to accomplish their own version of this - so the pairing idea of the Apple tv to a set that has a completely different gui doesn't fit in with what they are trying to do.
As far as pricing goes, Apple holds a lot of power in numbers - they've owned the iPod market, created the iPhone smartphone market as we know it today and changed the ultra portable notebook market - all with pricing that may have seemed to be higher than the competition at first, but when you compare...apples to apples (sorry, had to do it) it's clear that Apple can make more money selling at a competitive or even lower price than their competition.
I'd make the leap if they hit the magic price to performance (and visual) ratio that I'm sure they will.
Apple is able to command a premium with a much better product that we carry in our pocket and use all day long. TV's are not the same and also they are not a replacement device these days like the iPod/iTouch/iPad/iPhone. People keep them for a long time and thus will not turf out their existing HDTV just to get an Apple TV. Also, the sheer different in raw cost that the iTV will have to be for Apple to achieve it's margins is astronomical and people won't pay it, especially when they can just buy Apple TV and hook it up to their existing TV.
Anyone who thinks there is the remotest chance that any of this is true please take your current TV remote and bludgeon yourself over the head with it.
Apple is going to release a new TV but they gave prototype hardware to two Canadian phone companies first?
Apple is going to release a TV but they need partnerships not with content owners or even those with current contracts to distribute it, but two f*cking phone companies in Canada?
Apple is going to release a TV that looks like a "large scale iPad" for the living room?
This makes sense how now? Partnering with phone companies is necessary why now?
A giant iPad powered by the weak cell phone signals of two phone companies "solves" the problem of existing TV's in what way exactly?
Do your research before you make idiotic comments. Bell & Rogers are not phone companies. They are integrated companies offering mobile/internet/satellite/cable and other products. And, yes, we up here in Canada are way ahead of the curve on a lot of things which is why Apple does a lot of recruiting here and actually tests a lot of their products here first rather than in the gossipy US of A.
Comments
Was reading the comments on the Globe and Mail. Apparently most people have no idea how undoable it is to deliver live feed over the net. Neither Cable or DSL are even close to have the bandwight for it.
What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.
What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.
Thats doable because there network is build for it. I know EU use IPTV a lot, thats why its such a good idea for Apple to use that tech, its an international spec.
I had the lag in the first month but they fix that. I don't know how they did it in Eu, but here we have a compress feed with all channels for the guide PiP. Once you select a channel, its quick but you are watching the compress feed until the stream is setup. Unfortunately, sometimes after 8 secs the stream is still not setup yet and the image freeze. Happen to me yesterday, image froze for about 2 secs. Need to call them about it because I haven't seen this in months.
If this is real, then it must be something completely unexpected and from further afield than any other Apple product ever known. If true it will be more surprising that their most surprising product announcement (the iPod), which was only surprising because it was an entirely new kind of device for them at the time. An Apple TV is not that. It's an expected extension of their current business.
I thought that that is a given.
Jobs: I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,’ he told me. ‘It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.’ No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. ‘It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.
Certainly a 42" iOS 5+ "iPad' TV doesn't seem impossible. Thinner than it is now. Powered and connected to your cable box via Thunderbolt. And if I could view and pay for specific content on demand without having to buy a package of channels I will never watch…
Right now, and like many a family, we use (actually are more engrossed in) our iPads for entertainment/news than our TVs. Considering that the iPhone was an extension of the iPad, what is to say that the Apple 'TV' won't be as well. But this time going larger.
And if the rumored 42"'r comes in under $1500, there will be lineups like we have never seen before.
I have a four-year-old LCD in one room and plan on replacing the other TV in the home in about two or three years. If Apple wants me for a customer in less than those two years and, for that matter, to have access to this new service on both my TVs, there has to be an external box available that makes that possible.
We have two TVs in our household, which is likely typical, but I'm sure some households have even more. It would be unlikely that service providers like Rogers and Bell, here in Canada, would sign on to offer a service that would require one to replace all of one's TVs with Apple units undoubtedly costing more than your average set. On the other hand, if Apple had a system developed that could work with existing TVs coupled with a set-top box, this would be perceived to be a business opportunity by Rogers, Bell and similar service providers. They could make money either renting out or selling outright said boxes, just as they do now with PVRs and the like. Technically, if the existing set is basically a monitor attached to Apple`s controller unit, one should be able to do with it what one could do with an integrated Apple unit.
I can`t imagine that this can be achieved any other way. It is simply not viable for Apple to try and establish a new service while expecting consumers to replace all their TVs in order to buy in. It is especially problematic that there are an awful lot of recent-vintage big-screen sets sitting in people`s homes right now. In this tough economic environment, few if any of us are likely to ditch two-, three-, four-year-old TVs. No, I think what we`re going to get is a much-enhanced Apple TV set-top box combined with an Apple branded set that integrates said box.
I would further speculate that if this story has validity to it (the Globe and Mail is arguably Canada`s most respected newspaper) what Rogers and Bell have in their labs is not an Apple set but rather the enhanced Apple TV set-top box. If this box is close to being released, testing by the service providers who would offer it makes a lot of sense. And if this story is now leaked, I`m guessing we`re real close to having this box come to market, perhaps as early as next month. If it is a unit costing similar to a PVR and will allow consumers to subscribe to an ala carte service, it has good potential. With an installed base of some weight, it would only increase the market over the long haul for an Apple set with the set-top functionality built in.
Really, how could this go any other way.
Basically, a giant iPad. Siri, apps, facetime, decent screen quality, the eco system bonus, game system with PS3 quality graphics thereabouts if you have the A6 included.
But you still need content.
I did the netflix thing and watched a movie on an iPad 2. Pretty decent service. Still not enough content.
http://www.tvcatchup.com/ for live tv...
Still, they managed it with iTunes. Hollywood has been a harder obstacle to manoeuvre.
It's content, managing that content...in the iOS/iTunes ecosystem.
They could the phone subsidise model. But the TV upgrade would have to be compelling along with the software.
Standalone vs all in one. Guess they may do both.
I have a 50 inch Panasonic £699 plasma. ST30. Great at watching movies. It's smart tv aspect is very rubbish though.
ie Software. And that's where Apple has the whole industry beaten.
Have an iPad 3 to airplay via Atv 3? or the complete box and channels controlled by any iDevice?
It's a proposition.
People didn't understand the overpriced iPod/iPhone etc.
I'll be very interested to see the final product. Standalone or all in one.
At the very least an iPad 3 and ATV3 standalone are in my sight.
Try surfing the web via a PS3 or Panasonic. Painful. Apple can't do any worse. At the very least, I'd take an ATV3 and iPad3 to make the Panasonic more useful as a big screen multimedia device care of the iOS devices.
The ATV2 offers some insight. As does iOS , the iPad and whole iOS/iTunes ecosystem.
It's about the bringing it all together...and a content partnership with a cable company (eg like they did with the phone companies like ATT...) or Hollywood. They only have to get one company to crack and when the money starts pouring in...it will be game over.
As for price. All and sundry thought £1000 for an iPad. Apple smashed that preconception with the £399.
They're not to be underestimated.
Lemon Bon Bon.
in negotiations with the company to enter into a partnership for the device.
Why do they need a partnership arrangement? Very interesting.
Apple TV = local free to air chanels + cable broadband or 4G mobile broadband ???
Apple "mega plan" - unlimited data/internet on all Apple devices for one monthly fee.
Thats why I was asking if they had land lines. I have no idea I don't live in the US. If those leaks are true Apple is moving for an IPTV device, which makes sense because its next gen tech.
You and I have been saying if it happens, this is how it will happen. Here's hoping were right- id but one for sure. No AT&T program guide? Sign me up.
I like my content (DirecTV - loads of 1080i). I DO NOT want to have streaming 480 and 720 net based content. Netflix streaming? Yeah...simply fantastic. (No.) Crappy picture, buffering, network hog. (Yes, I use it. LOL)
Dear Apple,
Please put your lovely box and interface in my living room, as part of my tv watching experience. Change the way I watch or think about TV.
Yours,
PowerMach
...to compete with the upcoming Google/Motorola company and their access to the living room. Apple has a small window of opportunity to partner with cable companies and develop a compelling alternative to the end runaround that Google will pull off shortly. Google TV? Oh yeah - on every Motorola setup box.
oh man I have Motorola box, I hope Apple will offer there box with Bell IPTV. On the other hand, android would be a big improvement over Bell custom ecosystem. BTW those box are currently running windows CE. Microsoft is losing again.
I would further speculate that if this story has validity to it (the Globe and Mail is arguably Canada`s most respected newspaper) what Rogers and Bell have in their labs is not an Apple set but rather the enhanced Apple TV set-top box. If this box is close to being released, testing by the service providers who would offer it makes a lot of sense. And if this story is now leaked, I`m guessing we`re real close to having this box come to market, perhaps as early as next month. If it is a unit costing similar to a PVR and will allow consumers to subscribe to an ala carte service, it has good potential. With an installed base of some weight, it would only increase the market over the long haul for an Apple set with the set-top functionality built in.
Really, how could this go any other way.
they have both imo, a set-top box and an actual Apple TV set.
Hopefully the competition will be like you and still don't get it. Has long has Google still tries to bypass cable and deliver internet only TV feeds we are ok, damage is not so bad. Thats its, they are just making another ATV2.
Aside from being bad grammar and not making any sense. What exactly was that all about?
If you are so smart, explain why the TV cannot be separate from the box controlling it?
That to me is the million dollar question, and the one that remains unanswered. The only rumor that has alluded to a feature apple could actually offer the tv itself was that patent which allowed the remote to magically learn all of the connected devices.
Exactly. But, I don't understand why the electronics covered in this patent could not reside in an external Apple box rather than in the TV.
Apple TV is a device that moves the increasing intelligence and connectedness that people want in a viewing experience into an external box that works with any TV. iTV appears, from the rumours only though, to place these capabilities into the TV itself, limiting it's availability to TV's produced by Apple. The value proposition provided by an iTV will have to be pretty awesome for Apple to choose to sell a high-ticket item like an iTV with much lower margins than an Apple TV with very high margins. Likely Apple with go both ways and will enhance Apple TV at an increased price to provide iTV features to non-Apple TV's and provide iTV as a total solution to those who want to pay a higher price.
Right now, Apple TV is so easy to use with my 65" Panasonic Plasma that I can't see ditching this $3,000 TV and Apple TV just so I can have voice and gesture recognition. Nor do I see all my favourite cable TV channels all being available a la carte all of a sudden.
If you are so smart, explain why the TV cannot be separate from the box controlling it?
No, that's what he's saying. He doesn't believe there'll be a TV, simply another Apple TV box. And I'm all for that.
Why do they need a partnership arrangement? Very interesting.
Apple TV = local free to air chanels + cable broadband or 4G mobile broadband ???
Apple "mega plan" - unlimited data/internet on all Apple devices for one monthly fee.
Apple TV will be digital. Not available without a box and not free. It will via connect broadband.
Cable companies buy content and disperse it. Under a number of plans, e.g., Basic, Premium, boxed sets/packages, etc.
Right now my wife is watching Smash which is being streamed, free, to our Apple TV via the iPad 2/Air Play.
And in the future, like Rogers offering a la carte cable TV to Canadian customers we will have choices that we only want and pay for.
Thats why I was asking if they had land lines. I have no idea I don't live in the US. If those leaks are true Apple is moving for an IPTV device, which makes sense because its next gen tech.
Rogers offers cable TV, cable internet, cable phone and mobile devices (and was the first to offer the iPhone here in Canada), but not telco type land lines. They are likely testing iTV, if that is even true, in order to provide some of their cable feeds to iTV over the internet on an a la carte basis as a test. I doubt very much they'd open the kimono on the encryption in their PVR/DVR & cable boxes thus allowing their cable to be plugged directly into iTV and render their high priced (whether rented or bought) cable boxes to be rendered unnecessary. The same in the US with their encrypted PVR & DVR cable boxes. These companies cannot ignore Apple but they are going to tread into this area softly as there is a lot of bulk revenue derived from cable packages (where you have to subscribe to a bunch of stations at one time) at stake that is likely to decline if a la carte single channel, individual TV show or TV series offerings are available.
I'm sorry, and I know there are tons of theories, but I don't believe for a second that this new TV will include a display.
The current TV is $99.
Most TV manufacturers are losing money selling TVs
Since there is no profit in a display, Apple is not going to integrate TV with a display.
Consumers will put 2+2 together....
An average price for a much better than average 50" display is about $2000, give or take a couple hundred.
+
TV costs (in its current form) $99
Then the consumer will start scratching their collective heads and say: "Hey, why am I buying this integrated TV for $3500 (which is what Apple will have to sell it for in order to keep their gross margin at ~40%) when I can get a display and an TV separately and save $1200-1300?"
I just don't buy it.
IMHO, I think it's going to be a beautiful little box (similar to the current form) with a lot of magical goodness inside (in the form of a specialized iOS) and the killer app is how you control it. That's what Steve "cracked".
Sale price.......$299
I agree with you. The economics of an integrated display do not make sense and even with the added value proposition of the features that Apple may include there is no way they can increase the price of the TV enough over existing displays to achieve the margins they require.
It will be outside of the box at an increased price, as you predict.
Maybe, but my guess is that there are enough people out there that would rather have an Apple designed and spec'd television set where the whole experience is an Apple experience. The tv manufacturers are already trying their hardest to accomplish their own version of this - so the pairing idea of the Apple tv to a set that has a completely different gui doesn't fit in with what they are trying to do.
As far as pricing goes, Apple holds a lot of power in numbers - they've owned the iPod market, created the iPhone smartphone market as we know it today and changed the ultra portable notebook market - all with pricing that may have seemed to be higher than the competition at first, but when you compare...apples to apples (sorry, had to do it) it's clear that Apple can make more money selling at a competitive or even lower price than their competition.
I'd make the leap if they hit the magic price to performance (and visual) ratio that I'm sure they will.
Apple is able to command a premium with a much better product that we carry in our pocket and use all day long. TV's are not the same and also they are not a replacement device these days like the iPod/iTouch/iPad/iPhone. People keep them for a long time and thus will not turf out their existing HDTV just to get an Apple TV. Also, the sheer different in raw cost that the iTV will have to be for Apple to achieve it's margins is astronomical and people won't pay it, especially when they can just buy Apple TV and hook it up to their existing TV.
Anyone who thinks there is the remotest chance that any of this is true please take your current TV remote and bludgeon yourself over the head with it.
Apple is going to release a new TV but they gave prototype hardware to two Canadian phone companies first?
Apple is going to release a TV but they need partnerships not with content owners or even those with current contracts to distribute it, but two f*cking phone companies in Canada?
Apple is going to release a TV that looks like a "large scale iPad" for the living room?
This makes sense how now? Partnering with phone companies is necessary why now?
A giant iPad powered by the weak cell phone signals of two phone companies "solves" the problem of existing TV's in what way exactly?
Do your research before you make idiotic comments. Bell & Rogers are not phone companies. They are integrated companies offering mobile/internet/satellite/cable and other products. And, yes, we up here in Canada are way ahead of the curve on a lot of things which is why Apple does a lot of recruiting here and actually tests a lot of their products here first rather than in the gossipy US of A.