I'm with you here too... If Apple can come up with a viable alternative to the cable and satellite strangleholds, I'm in!
Apple turned the music and much of the phone industry on their heads, so there is some precedence for hope here. I can't imagine ever spending $1000 to $1500 on a TV, but if it means the demise of the current cable and satellite paradigms, well... I'll have to reconsider.
My wish would be for an iTunes sort of TV menu with maybe a small monthly provider charge - say under $10? I can then subscribe (with the usual commercial content) to any one channel or multiple channels for $1.99 a month each. At the end of that 30 days, I have the option to re-up or move on. Right now, I'm subscribed to over 200 channels only because I have to have that package to have access to the 1/2 dozen channels I really want. All of that comes at close to $100 a month.
A lot of people for many years wished they could buy just the "hits" off the music recordings, but were forced to pay upwards of $20 for that one song that then came along with usually a dozen other songs that were turkeys. Say what you want about MP3 fidelity, I listen to WAY more music now since the advent of "on-the-go" devices and now when I spend $20 on music, I get 20 songs that I really want to listen to. My wish is to have that same access with my TV viewing, I wish to pay for what I use and only what I use.
The music industry is much different from the TV/movie industry. Unlike music where there are many players and TV/movie industry has major players plus a few minor ones. I could produce a #1 hit sing in my basement but I cannot make a season of Lost. I'm really curious to see what Apple had up their sleeve.
it will be interesting to see how high Apple will be able to price a TV and still have it sell.
Sony hasn't made a profit in 8 years on TVs
Samsung, Panasonic, Philips etc haven't made a profit on TVs this year.
Pioneer left the TV business because there wasn't a big enough market for high end products.
They have to cut their margins on TVs to compete, but they thought they could make it up in sales of 3D glasses.
With Apple, I would see them bringing out a HDTV with a lower profit margin than they normally look for - because they would expect to make up the difference on the sales of media, movies, apps, etc.
But it won't be a low-budget Kindle black & white TV with a tiny screen.
With Apple, I would see them bringing out a HDTV with a lower profit margin than they normally look for - because they would expect to make up the difference on the sales of media, movies, apps, etc.
It's hard to imagine how apps on an Apple HDTV will make up the loss of profit in the long term when the HW for the apps will be quickly outdated. I don't expect AppleTV HW to be updated yearly once they move to apps, but every 2 or 3 years seems reasonable. Certainly not the 5 or 10 years that TVs tend to be used.
Rather than building a TV I wish Apple would do something in the car audio space. I just bought a new deck for car as I wanted to be able to hook up my iPhone to it. But the interface is just a nightmare. Figuring out how to use the damn thing is a pain in the arse.
Why would Comcast want to sell a TV when they could just sell a set top box?
Just speculating here but could it be that the dominance of content providers such as Comcast is in threatened by access to content across the web? If you can buy web based content packages from Comcast, does it matter where in the US you live? I have no basis for thinking this is even possible, but if this is what the future holds then there may be an incentive for the Comcasts in this world to partner up with someone like Apple.
The other point is that if Comcast sees a threat from the Apple model of content distribution it may be better for them to be aboard and play Apple's game and remain in control of the content.
If over time Comcast can do away with hardware they may save money.
If the market opens up to competition the one who's in bed with Apple may be better positioned.
Quote:
Comcast and Apple will want you stay on that same Video 1 input on the TV so making it easier to switch to your Blu-ray player or whatever isn't in their best interest. Once you plug the TV's HDMI and power into the set top box it becomes a dumb monitor that allows you to hide the remote in a draw out of view.
On an Apple TV there would be no 'Video 1' option ;-) Designations such as Video 1, HDMi etc will seem archaic very quickly
Quote:
The beauty of the set top box is that it's easier to distribute, easier to sell, can be sold at a lower price than a TV yet have a higher profit per unit, can be sold to more consumers because 1) its cheaper, 2) it doesn't mean consumers have to get rid of their currently work and perfectly fine TVs, and 3) because they connect more units to more TVs in their home instead of just on the primary TV in the living room.
I am not sure there would be a higher profit margin on a set top box than on a TV set, but the thing I would worry about buying a 'smart tv' is whether the thing will still be smart in 5 years time.
I can imagine Apple would want to sell additional hardware with a TV set. If you have paid for a content stream why limit that to a single TV? Maybe there is a business model there. A single stream costs x and two, tree or four streams cost xx,xxx, and xxxx. I imagine Apple would want to sell additional hardware to receive and distribute content in the house, building upon existing technology.
Quote:
Nothing about a partnership with content providers makes putting the AppleTV HW in a TV a more lucrative maneuver. The only HW that would really only work in that sense are any cameras (FaceTime) or motion sensors. However the former has issues because TVs are not placed directly in from of the face the way FaceTime cameras on Macs and iDevices are. Mics for Siri would likely have to be placed in the remote control. You can't have it that far away from the speaker and you still need to initiate Siri with a button press. I doubt some elaborate hand gesture will work for this.
I still contend that nothing would advertise Apple's move into the living room better than a big screen with an Apple logo. That in itself has value. If this TV has a camera and Siri there is no reason the camera needs to be the same as in every other Mac. It may be able to pan and zoom. an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad would make great companions and remotes. I would imagine a separate smart controller being available, also.
Rather than building a TV I wish Apple would do something in the car audio space. I just bought a new deck for car as I wanted to be able to hook up my iPhone to it. But the interface is just a nightmare. Figuring out how to use the damn thing is a pain in the arse.
Clunky looking and not for me, but I do think the price is right and the removable front plate to accommodate future iPhone designs is a nice addition.
I am not sure there would be a higher profit margin on a set top box than on a TV set, but the thing I would worry about buying a 'smart tv' is whether the thing will still be smart in 5 years time.
That made me think of something. Remember the failed profit sharing Apple tried with the original iPhone? A set top box would be a great place to offer this. They can have contracts with cable cos to pay a nominal or no fee for the box up front but then get a monthly kickback from all customers that are using Apple's box.
I think I'd pay double the price than my current set top box for one that had the AppleTV inside just for the convenience. Over a year that could pay for itself and then some. The cable cos would have to pay less money out of pocket and Apple could make more money and be part of your everyday TV viewing habits in ways that a stand alone TV could never be.
Quote:
I still contend that nothing would advertise Apple's move into the living room better than a big screen with an Apple logo.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
That made me think of something. Remember the failed profit sharing Apple tried with the original iPhone? A set top box would be a great place to offer this. They can have contracts with cable cos to pay a nominal or no fee for the box up front but then get a monthly kickback from all customers that are using Apple's box.
I think I'd pay double the price than my current set top box for one that had the AppleTV inside just for the convenience. Over a year that could pay for itself and then some. The cable cos would have to pay less money out of pocket and Apple could make more money and be part of your everyday TV viewing habits in ways that a stand alone TV could never be.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
You assume too much about my comment. I never said anything about Apple piggybacking on their infrastructure (at least any more than their devices already do), nor did I mention anything about advertising streams.
The only revenue difference I mentioned would be a large upfront savings for cable cos in the form of cable boxes that Apple would be paid for each month through the cable co from the consumer using Apple's boxes. Boxes that are still pushing the cable co's channels with all there national, regional and local ads, and with all their deals with the networks still in place.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
I posted this before in the Rogers thread, but it still applies and I still believe it.
It's a cable box
...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.
Yours,
PowerMach
P.S. In 3-5 years when it's not "awesome" anymore, I want to buy another one...the newest one. Selling me a TV just won't fly. DVD player breaks, buy another, etc., etc.
Everyone should check out the latest Google TV (don't laugh) it's pretty freakin' good. Compare it to the current Apple TV2. http://www.google.com/tv/
Apple wouldn't want to be tied to Comcast or anyone.
Apple wants to replace Comcast.
Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.
This thing will be a true "convergence" device.
Apple is going run cable to every home so they can be the ISP? No way.
Apple is going to get the networks to dump all their guaranteed payments to the cable providers and supply all the advertising but somehow run it like iTunes without ads in a costly Ã* la carte fashion? No way.
I don't. In fact, we thought it was extremely successful.
It flopped. AT&T seemed to love it and it was good for consumers but Apple had a hard time selling it to the cellular industry and abandoned it by the time the iPhone 3G arrived. It's rumoured that Apple had to agree to another year of exclusivity in order to get AT&T to dump the model.
Cool analysis, bro. Being able to predict the market share and revenue earnings based on an unannounced product, no clue on what this product even is, the features or even a price.
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
Exactly. Nobody has yet described a scenario where giving Apple more control over the supplier's content stream and a bite of the revenue would be even slightly attractive to the cable and satellite companies. Failing that, they will have to either think huge with plans to replicate this infrastructure entirely on their own, or smaller, by replacing the cable box with iOS software that duplicates its function in a way that doesn't suck. The latter scenario is far more realistic.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)
An Airport Extreme device to send content to the TV and everywhere else in the house
iDevices for games and ... err... that's it.
I think you are right in that it makes more sense just to make a set top box type thing like aTV2, but ditto for desktop computers. Logically Apple ought only to make the mini. As Apple is very design driven / focussed I am sure the aTV will never quite appeal as much as an all in one unit.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
Comments
- Top 25 Multichannel Video Programming Distributors as of Sept. 2011
Where would AT&T, Verizon, Dish and DirectTV fit in? What about the rest of the world?I'm with you here too... If Apple can come up with a viable alternative to the cable and satellite strangleholds, I'm in!
Apple turned the music and much of the phone industry on their heads, so there is some precedence for hope here. I can't imagine ever spending $1000 to $1500 on a TV, but if it means the demise of the current cable and satellite paradigms, well... I'll have to reconsider.
My wish would be for an iTunes sort of TV menu with maybe a small monthly provider charge - say under $10? I can then subscribe (with the usual commercial content) to any one channel or multiple channels for $1.99 a month each. At the end of that 30 days, I have the option to re-up or move on. Right now, I'm subscribed to over 200 channels only because I have to have that package to have access to the 1/2 dozen channels I really want. All of that comes at close to $100 a month.
A lot of people for many years wished they could buy just the "hits" off the music recordings, but were forced to pay upwards of $20 for that one song that then came along with usually a dozen other songs that were turkeys. Say what you want about MP3 fidelity, I listen to WAY more music now since the advent of "on-the-go" devices and now when I spend $20 on music, I get 20 songs that I really want to listen to. My wish is to have that same access with my TV viewing, I wish to pay for what I use and only what I use.
The music industry is much different from the TV/movie industry. Unlike music where there are many players and TV/movie industry has major players plus a few minor ones. I could produce a #1 hit sing in my basement but I cannot make a season of Lost. I'm really curious to see what Apple had up their sleeve.
it will be interesting to see how high Apple will be able to price a TV and still have it sell.
Sony hasn't made a profit in 8 years on TVs
Samsung, Panasonic, Philips etc haven't made a profit on TVs this year.
Pioneer left the TV business because there wasn't a big enough market for high end products.
They have to cut their margins on TVs to compete, but they thought they could make it up in sales of 3D glasses.
With Apple, I would see them bringing out a HDTV with a lower profit margin than they normally look for - because they would expect to make up the difference on the sales of media, movies, apps, etc.
But it won't be a low-budget Kindle black & white TV with a tiny screen.
With Apple, I would see them bringing out a HDTV with a lower profit margin than they normally look for - because they would expect to make up the difference on the sales of media, movies, apps, etc.
It's hard to imagine how apps on an Apple HDTV will make up the loss of profit in the long term when the HW for the apps will be quickly outdated. I don't expect AppleTV HW to be updated yearly once they move to apps, but every 2 or 3 years seems reasonable. Certainly not the 5 or 10 years that TVs tend to be used.
Price it around $1300 - $1600 and I'm buying it!
I'm used to B&O price levels, so I would easily pay $3000 - $5000 for a nice Apple HDTV (or whatever it is called).
Why would Comcast want to sell a TV when they could just sell a set top box?
Just speculating here but could it be that the dominance of content providers such as Comcast is in threatened by access to content across the web? If you can buy web based content packages from Comcast, does it matter where in the US you live? I have no basis for thinking this is even possible, but if this is what the future holds then there may be an incentive for the Comcasts in this world to partner up with someone like Apple.
The other point is that if Comcast sees a threat from the Apple model of content distribution it may be better for them to be aboard and play Apple's game and remain in control of the content.
If over time Comcast can do away with hardware they may save money.
If the market opens up to competition the one who's in bed with Apple may be better positioned.
Comcast and Apple will want you stay on that same Video 1 input on the TV so making it easier to switch to your Blu-ray player or whatever isn't in their best interest. Once you plug the TV's HDMI and power into the set top box it becomes a dumb monitor that allows you to hide the remote in a draw out of view.
On an Apple TV there would be no 'Video 1' option ;-) Designations such as Video 1, HDMi etc will seem archaic very quickly
The beauty of the set top box is that it's easier to distribute, easier to sell, can be sold at a lower price than a TV yet have a higher profit per unit, can be sold to more consumers because 1) its cheaper, 2) it doesn't mean consumers have to get rid of their currently work and perfectly fine TVs, and 3) because they connect more units to more TVs in their home instead of just on the primary TV in the living room.
I am not sure there would be a higher profit margin on a set top box than on a TV set, but the thing I would worry about buying a 'smart tv' is whether the thing will still be smart in 5 years time.
I can imagine Apple would want to sell additional hardware with a TV set. If you have paid for a content stream why limit that to a single TV? Maybe there is a business model there. A single stream costs x and two, tree or four streams cost xx,xxx, and xxxx. I imagine Apple would want to sell additional hardware to receive and distribute content in the house, building upon existing technology.
Nothing about a partnership with content providers makes putting the AppleTV HW in a TV a more lucrative maneuver. The only HW that would really only work in that sense are any cameras (FaceTime) or motion sensors. However the former has issues because TVs are not placed directly in from of the face the way FaceTime cameras on Macs and iDevices are. Mics for Siri would likely have to be placed in the remote control. You can't have it that far away from the speaker and you still need to initiate Siri with a button press. I doubt some elaborate hand gesture will work for this.
I still contend that nothing would advertise Apple's move into the living room better than a big screen with an Apple logo. That in itself has value. If this TV has a camera and Siri there is no reason the camera needs to be the same as in every other Mac. It may be able to pan and zoom. an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad would make great companions and remotes. I would imagine a separate smart controller being available, also.
Rather than building a TV I wish Apple would do something in the car audio space. I just bought a new deck for car as I wanted to be able to hook up my iPhone to it. But the interface is just a nightmare. Figuring out how to use the damn thing is a pain in the arse.
Clunky looking and not for me, but I do think the price is right and the removable front plate to accommodate future iPhone designs is a nice addition.
I am not sure there would be a higher profit margin on a set top box than on a TV set, but the thing I would worry about buying a 'smart tv' is whether the thing will still be smart in 5 years time.
That made me think of something. Remember the failed profit sharing Apple tried with the original iPhone? A set top box would be a great place to offer this. They can have contracts with cable cos to pay a nominal or no fee for the box up front but then get a monthly kickback from all customers that are using Apple's box.
I think I'd pay double the price than my current set top box for one that had the AppleTV inside just for the convenience. Over a year that could pay for itself and then some. The cable cos would have to pay less money out of pocket and Apple could make more money and be part of your everyday TV viewing habits in ways that a stand alone TV could never be.
I still contend that nothing would advertise Apple's move into the living room better than a big screen with an Apple logo.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
That made me think of something. Remember the failed profit sharing Apple tried with the original iPhone? A set top box would be a great place to offer this. They can have contracts with cable cos to pay a nominal or no fee for the box up front but then get a monthly kickback from all customers that are using Apple's box.
I think I'd pay double the price than my current set top box for one that had the AppleTV inside just for the convenience. Over a year that could pay for itself and then some. The cable cos would have to pay less money out of pocket and Apple could make more money and be part of your everyday TV viewing habits in ways that a stand alone TV could never be.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
Apple wants to replace Comcast.
Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.
This thing will be a true "convergence" device.
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
You assume too much about my comment. I never said anything about Apple piggybacking on their infrastructure (at least any more than their devices already do), nor did I mention anything about advertising streams.
The only revenue difference I mentioned would be a large upfront savings for cable cos in the form of cable boxes that Apple would be paid for each month through the cable co from the consumer using Apple's boxes. Boxes that are still pushing the cable co's channels with all there national, regional and local ads, and with all their deals with the networks still in place.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
It's a cable box
...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.
Yours,
PowerMach
P.S. In 3-5 years when it's not "awesome" anymore, I want to buy another one...the newest one. Selling me a TV just won't fly. DVD player breaks, buy another, etc., etc.
Everyone should check out the latest Google TV (don't laugh) it's pretty freakin' good. Compare it to the current Apple TV2. http://www.google.com/tv/
Apple wouldn't want to be tied to Comcast or anyone.
Apple wants to replace Comcast.
Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.
This thing will be a true "convergence" device.
Apple is going run cable to every home so they can be the ISP? No way.
Apple is going to get the networks to dump all their guaranteed payments to the cable providers and supply all the advertising but somehow run it like iTunes without ads in a costly Ã* la carte fashion? No way.
Remember the failed profit sharing Apple tried with the original iPhone?
I don't. In fact, we thought it was extremely successful.
I don't. In fact, we thought it was extremely successful.
It flopped. AT&T seemed to love it and it was good for consumers but Apple had a hard time selling it to the cellular industry and abandoned it by the time the iPhone 3G arrived. It's rumoured that Apple had to agree to another year of exclusivity in order to get AT&T to dump the model.
But why would the cable companies ever let Apple piggy back onto their infrastructure? Apple would then sell consumers content. Why would the cable compnies give up their existing revenue streams? Not to even mention advertising dollars......
Exactly. Nobody has yet described a scenario where giving Apple more control over the supplier's content stream and a bite of the revenue would be even slightly attractive to the cable and satellite companies. Failing that, they will have to either think huge with plans to replicate this infrastructure entirely on their own, or smaller, by replacing the cable box with iOS software that duplicates its function in a way that doesn't suck. The latter scenario is far more realistic.
I still contend that Apple already owns the living room with iDevices and Mac notebooks, it's the HEC (Home Entertainment Center) that they don't yet own.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)
An Airport Extreme device to send content to the TV and everywhere else in the house
iDevices for games and ... err... that's it.
I think you are right in that it makes more sense just to make a set top box type thing like aTV2, but ditto for desktop computers. Logically Apple ought only to make the mini. As Apple is very design driven / focussed I am sure the aTV will never quite appeal as much as an all in one unit.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.