And my informed sources have told me that it's a final prototype for the revised cinema displays which will come in a 27 and 36 inch size, add hdmi to the connection options, be 3/4ths the thickness of the current and have a retina display
27" and 36" are both far too small for a TV set. Anything below 50" is currently being sold as "small."
This is dumb. What possible purpose could putting hundreds of dollars worth of Liquid Metal into the body of the remote have?
The "morphing remote" patent Apple has is to do with the UI not liquid metal. You make it sound like the device is going to change shape like the robots in the Terminator movies. And the morphing keyboard is already here for that matter, it's called "the iOS keyboard."
Most input devices for TV are horrible. Even Apple's remotes are bad. A remote with a little joystick on it would be more appropriate. Then you could have the windowing interface similar to desktop computers.
I'd like to have a TV that is Internet connected and that I could program Internet channels into. They would be like favorites but I could flip through them like TV stations or bring up a guide to find what is playing. The internet channels would be a separate input from cable channels. Video and audio Podcasts could fill-in content along with well established site such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Hulu Plus, etc. It would be a television revolution.
On the hardware itself? Plenty. On the content sold? Even more.
There is not a single thing a $2,000 panel can do that a $99 box cannot. Apple has revolutionized cell phones and they did it on someone else's cell phone network. Apple has revolutionized desktop computing and they did it on someone else's Internet connection.
Apple already makes hardware on which they make profit. Televisions are NOT a profit-making market.
If they are done right, they can make a profit. It helps drive more iTunes business, it makes the user experience better if they are using iPads, IPhones, etc. If you had a chance to sell units and make $500 to $1000 net profit per box, you might think differently. Some models don't make much profit, but some models do. Yeah, it is kind of hard to make a profit selling a 50 inch TV for $700, but that's not the entire market. You can make a profit if done properly.
I really, really don't think the term "TV" is going to be a part of this. If Apple is smart, which they obviously are, they'll eliminate that term which is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
I really, really don't think the term "TV" is going to be a part of this. If Apple is smart, which they obviously are, they'll eliminate that term which is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
They did keep the word Phone though, and it worked.. even though talking is the thing I do the least with my iPhone.
I see what you mean though, I think they're aiming for something so much more. It's probably gonna be TV, facetime, apps and family bulletin board something.
I hope they'll just keep voice recognition out of it and they'll be fine.
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it will be be a fantastic product otherwise. But it's the 'otherwise' that will make it a fringe product.
Apple still doesn't let the Airport Express work with anything outside of iTunes. Result - [fringe]
AppleTV is so crippled that retail has to explain it can be jail-broken to function. Result - [fringe]
We will see if Apple comes out with the next 'best in class' product - or another Apple Hi-Fi (remember that game changer).
It needs to be free of iTunes to succeed. That's my point.
I think you are wrong on all these points, although I know nothing about Airport Express so I'm not positive about that.
AppleTV is not "crippled" in any sense of the word and AppleTV jailbreakers, at least in Canada get no benefit for their troubles. The only thing you can put on it is stuff like Boxee which is only available in the USA. If you want to do anything creative that way, attaching a Mac mini is the way to go. A jailbroken AppleTV in Canada is useless.
AppleTV works perfectly off of iTunes, so anything you have in iTunes "just works" including adult or illegal content, content ripped from physical media, and torrented content. Your problem (revealed by your last statement), is just that you don't like iTunes.
Possibly you are one of those people that just don't like having to import or convert your content, and have oodles of basically ripped off content that you are too lazy to put into iTunes so it will work on the AppleTV. It's perfectly valid that you don't want to do that, but it has no bearing on whether AppleTV is a good product or not, or whether the vast majority of users aren't completely satisfied with it.
Personally, I love AppleTV although I rarely ever buy or rent content because the prices are far too high and only ever use it for Netflix or my own content from iTunes. If I had one complaint it would be the fact that even if the prices were more reasonable, you can't actually buy content through the AppleTV at all currently. I'm pretty sure that with a new "iTV" this restriction will likely be removed or rolled back however.
... There is not a single thing a $2,000 panel can do that a $99 box cannot. ...
Ah, but there is also nothing that a $99 box can do that a $2,000 panel with the same circuitry cannot do either though.
The point being they are equal solutions with the exception of one of them having an integrated display.
Technically, the balance (in terms of "what they can do"), is actually in favour of the display because the box has to be connected to something.
It seems to me that it's even if they come out with the integrated TV, it's likely that they would continue to sell the box for those that just want the box. The people who refuse to give up on old media inputs, cable, X-Boxes and the like will want the box. The people who are ready to move forward will want the integrated solution.
In my case for instance, I have a giant TV, connected to an AppleTV box and have no other inputs at all. I get all my content from the Internet.
The integrated solution would work well for me because it would turn my two remotes and two devices into one.
On the hardware itself? Plenty. On the content sold? Even more.
There is not a single thing a $2,000 panel can do that a $99 box cannot. Apple has revolutionized cell phones and they did it on someone else's cell phone network. Apple has revolutionized desktop computing and they did it on someone else's Internet connection.
Apple already makes hardware on which they make profit. Televisions are NOT a profit-making market.
And wasn't/isn't the same thing said about laptops? A low margin commodity business? Apple seems to be succeeding there when the Dell's and HP's of the world are struggling.
At Apple's annual shareholder meeting Tim Cook said (in reference to a question about coming up with an alternative to Netflix or Hulu): " We get profit from selling devices...our focus is not on making a lot of money in content".
In Q2 Apple recorded $39B in revenue. Of that $2B came from iTunes. They don't break it down so have no way of knowing what the profit margin is but at one point I believe it was pretty much a break even business. Thy can't be making much money off of music and video sales...revenue increases are likely due to the 30% cut they get on app sales. I just can't see how that $99 black box is making them a ton of money in hardware or content. If it was Tim Cook wouldn't refer to it as a "hobby".
If they are done right, they can make a profit. It helps drive more iTunes business, it makes the user experience better if they are using iPads, IPhones, etc. If you had a chance to sell units and make $500 to $1000 net profit per box, you might think differently. Some models don't make much profit, but some models do. Yeah, it is kind of hard to make a profit selling a 50 inch TV for $700, but that's not the entire market. You can make a profit if done properly.
And if any company knows how to make a profit where you wouldn't think they could it's Apple. Apple's brand value is huge. They come out with a TV that's a work of art and has an integrated, simplified UI people will buy it.
This is called "shifting the grounds of the debate" (in order to win). Your original argument was obviously about utility and not price.
Fine.
You can't take your $2,000 panel to your friend's house when you want to show him stuff on your iDevices. The $2,000 panel doesn't let me choose display quality. The $2,000 panel creates physical waste with which you have to deal, and waste with which technology reclamation centers have to deal. You say the box is for people that don't want to change their televisions out, but selling both is selling a full solution and a solution and a half. It's like Tesla selling the cars and then becoming a power provider to sell you the electricity. It's unnecessary.
I can see this thing being used in schools. Taking iPads that the students have and displaying them on a TV for presentations, the teacher using the internet or other features in a classroom setting. This is a no brainer.
A $99 Apple TV will do that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
Samsung sells about 30 million TVs worldwide, generating $30 billion a year. TVs account for roughly 25% of all of their revenue. The TV market overall is 110 million units a year
This is a big opportunity for Apple, even more so of they are able to tie it to profitable content subscription services.
Sony's TV business has lost money for eight straight years (last year $2.2 billion).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
And my informed sources have told me that it's a final prototype for the revised cinema displays which will come in a 27 and 36 inch size, add hdmi to the connection options, be 3/4ths the thickness of the current and have a retina display
27" and 36" are both far too small for a TV set. Anything below 50" is currently being sold as "small."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
It needs to be free of iTunes to succeed. That's my point.
Point received. And ignored, because you don't seem to understand what Apple's plan is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
www.itv.com
The Only Way is Essex, Coronation Street & Emmerdale dominate.
This is why Apple should buy ITV and give the money back to the shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is dumb. What possible purpose could putting hundreds of dollars worth of Liquid Metal into the body of the remote have?
The "morphing remote" patent Apple has is to do with the UI not liquid metal. You make it sound like the device is going to change shape like the robots in the Terminator movies. And the morphing keyboard is already here for that matter, it's called "the iOS keyboard."
Is he joking? I mean, wtflmfaonfwih!
Most input devices for TV are horrible. Even Apple's remotes are bad. A remote with a little joystick on it would be more appropriate. Then you could have the windowing interface similar to desktop computers.
I'd like to have a TV that is Internet connected and that I could program Internet channels into. They would be like favorites but I could flip through them like TV stations or bring up a guide to find what is playing. The internet channels would be a separate input from cable channels. Video and audio Podcasts could fill-in content along with well established site such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Hulu Plus, etc. It would be a television revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
On the hardware itself? Plenty. On the content sold? Even more.
There is not a single thing a $2,000 panel can do that a $99 box cannot. Apple has revolutionized cell phones and they did it on someone else's cell phone network. Apple has revolutionized desktop computing and they did it on someone else's Internet connection.
Apple already makes hardware on which they make profit. Televisions are NOT a profit-making market.
If they are done right, they can make a profit. It helps drive more iTunes business, it makes the user experience better if they are using iPads, IPhones, etc. If you had a chance to sell units and make $500 to $1000 net profit per box, you might think differently. Some models don't make much profit, but some models do. Yeah, it is kind of hard to make a profit selling a 50 inch TV for $700, but that's not the entire market. You can make a profit if done properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmantopia
I really, really don't think the term "TV" is going to be a part of this. If Apple is smart, which they obviously are, they'll eliminate that term which is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
iTV
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax
The Only Way is Essex, Coronation Street & Emmerdale dominate.
This is why Apple should buy ITV and give the money back to the shareholders.
Don't give up your day job.
I see what you mean though, I think they're aiming for something so much more. It's probably gonna be TV, facetime, apps and family bulletin board something.
I hope they'll just keep voice recognition out of it and they'll be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
Wanna place bets on crippling and stifling DRM?
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it will be be a fantastic product otherwise. But it's the 'otherwise' that will make it a fringe product.
Apple still doesn't let the Airport Express work with anything outside of iTunes. Result - [fringe]
AppleTV is so crippled that retail has to explain it can be jail-broken to function. Result - [fringe]
We will see if Apple comes out with the next 'best in class' product - or another Apple Hi-Fi (remember that game changer).
It needs to be free of iTunes to succeed. That's my point.
I think you are wrong on all these points, although I know nothing about Airport Express so I'm not positive about that.
AppleTV is not "crippled" in any sense of the word and AppleTV jailbreakers, at least in Canada get no benefit for their troubles. The only thing you can put on it is stuff like Boxee which is only available in the USA. If you want to do anything creative that way, attaching a Mac mini is the way to go. A jailbroken AppleTV in Canada is useless.
AppleTV works perfectly off of iTunes, so anything you have in iTunes "just works" including adult or illegal content, content ripped from physical media, and torrented content. Your problem (revealed by your last statement), is just that you don't like iTunes.
Possibly you are one of those people that just don't like having to import or convert your content, and have oodles of basically ripped off content that you are too lazy to put into iTunes so it will work on the AppleTV. It's perfectly valid that you don't want to do that, but it has no bearing on whether AppleTV is a good product or not, or whether the vast majority of users aren't completely satisfied with it.
Personally, I love AppleTV although I rarely ever buy or rent content because the prices are far too high and only ever use it for Netflix or my own content from iTunes. If I had one complaint it would be the fact that even if the prices were more reasonable, you can't actually buy content through the AppleTV at all currently. I'm pretty sure that with a new "iTV" this restriction will likely be removed or rolled back however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
... There is not a single thing a $2,000 panel can do that a $99 box cannot. ...
Ah, but there is also nothing that a $99 box can do that a $2,000 panel with the same circuitry cannot do either though.
The point being they are equal solutions with the exception of one of them having an integrated display.
Technically, the balance (in terms of "what they can do"), is actually in favour of the display because the box has to be connected to something.
It seems to me that it's even if they come out with the integrated TV, it's likely that they would continue to sell the box for those that just want the box. The people who refuse to give up on old media inputs, cable, X-Boxes and the like will want the box. The people who are ready to move forward will want the integrated solution.
In my case for instance, I have a giant TV, connected to an AppleTV box and have no other inputs at all. I get all my content from the Internet.
The integrated solution would work well for me because it would turn my two remotes and two devices into one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Ah, but there is also nothing that a $99 box can do that a $2,000 panel with the same circuitry cannot do either though.
A $99 box can be bought by me and tens of millions of others. A $2,000 panel won't be.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A $99 box can be bought by me and tens of millions of others. A $2,000 panel won't be.
You sound like Michael Dell a bit on that one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A $99 box can be bought by me and tens of millions of others. A $2,000 panel won't be.
This is called "shifting the grounds of the debate" (in order to win). Your original argument was obviously about utility and not price.
At Apple's annual shareholder meeting Tim Cook said (in reference to a question about coming up with an alternative to Netflix or Hulu): " We get profit from selling devices...our focus is not on making a lot of money in content".
In Q2 Apple recorded $39B in revenue. Of that $2B came from iTunes. They don't break it down so have no way of knowing what the profit margin is but at one point I believe it was pretty much a break even business. Thy can't be making much money off of music and video sales...revenue increases are likely due to the 30% cut they get on app sales. I just can't see how that $99 black box is making them a ton of money in hardware or content. If it was Tim Cook wouldn't refer to it as a "hobby".
Ahh but I can always dream. Would it really be that expensive to have a remote about the size of an iPhone covered in a thin layer of liquid metal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is called "shifting the grounds of the debate" (in order to win). Your original argument was obviously about utility and not price.
Fine.
You can't take your $2,000 panel to your friend's house when you want to show him stuff on your iDevices. The $2,000 panel doesn't let me choose display quality. The $2,000 panel creates physical waste with which you have to deal, and waste with which technology reclamation centers have to deal. You say the box is for people that don't want to change their televisions out, but selling both is selling a full solution and a solution and a half. It's like Tesla selling the cars and then becoming a power provider to sell you the electricity. It's unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I can see this thing being used in schools. Taking iPads that the students have and displaying them on a TV for presentations, the teacher using the internet or other features in a classroom setting. This is a no brainer.
A $99 Apple TV will do that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
Samsung sells about 30 million TVs worldwide, generating $30 billion a year. TVs account for roughly 25% of all of their revenue. The TV market overall is 110 million units a year
This is a big opportunity for Apple, even more so of they are able to tie it to profitable content subscription services.
Sony's TV business has lost money for eight straight years (last year $2.2 billion).
Sharp lost Y376.08 billion
Panasonic lost Y780 billion
Really big opportunity...