55" Apple LCD TV for about $2,000 seen as matter of 'when,' not 'if'

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 141
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    I commented on an earlier thread about the forthcoming AppleTV, and just did a quick Google research on some of the things that I think will definitely be included in any Apple-branded TV to be successful.

    [LIST=1]
    [*] Remote replacement for all connected devices inkl. BluRay, Tivo, Cablebox, etc. I think Apple will sell their current remote stand-alone, but also update their iOS remote. While it could be a simple IR... an RF remote would be better, as stated in this glowing review of the [URL=http://universal-remote-review.toptenreviews.com/logitech-harmony-one-review.html]Logitec Harmony One ~$160,00[/URL].
    [*] Programming their own chip to interface with the [URL=http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/hdmi2.htm]consumer electronics channel (CEC) in HDMI cables[/URL] to allow devices to communicate with each other
    [*] Full use of the HDMI 1.3 spec, as well as DisplayPort.
    [*] integrated iSight camera is a given, but what about [URL=http://leapmotion.com/]Leap Motion[/URL]?

    [/LIST]

    Personally, I think the Universal Remote is the biggest improvement that Apple can make to most any entertainment system.... and actually improve it rather easily.
  • Reply 22 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    andysol wrote: »
    So- $1,100 or $1,200 for a 60" LG or Samsung Plasma, or $2,000 for a 55" LED. It better have some serious integration (cable box and Blu ray built in and amazingly intuitive to control)- or something else crazy I haven't thought of. Otherwise, plasma and apple tv for me.

    Why would you compare the price of plasma to LED? How about an apples to apples comparison? Yes, the rumored Apple TV would still be more expensive, but not as much as you're suggesting.

    And, of course, the energy cost of operating the plasma TV will make it more expensive in the end, anyway.
  • Reply 23 of 141
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Just to clarify my above post:

    imagine if the TV intercepted all of the IR and HDMI signals, and made them available using Bonjour Services over WLAN, Bluetooth 4, or AirPlay connection.
  • Reply 24 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    slinberg wrote: »
    $2000 for a TV? Sure.

    If I'm ever going to lay out that kind of change, it has to be a full-blown Mac on the inside. An iMac with a 55" monitor. $2k for that, fine. $2k for just the monitor, forget it.

    Considering that a 27" iMac is $2 K, why in the world would you expect a 55" iMac for the same price?

    Some people just can't be realistic in their demands.....
  • Reply 25 of 141
    scotty321scotty321 Posts: 313member
    A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.
  • Reply 26 of 141
    applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member


    tumblr_m4cauwIz8Z1qijqc2o1_500.jpg

  • Reply 27 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Oh, hey, look at this.


     


    Release of iPad mini viewed as question of "when", not "if".


     


    Oh, hey, look at this, too.


     


    Mini iPhone a question of "when", not "if".


     


    Can we stop the madness now? You can't repeat it enough times to make it true. If I were Tim Cook seeing this stuff, I'd put effort into making it never true. image

  • Reply 28 of 141
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member


    Anyone here who thinks $2K for a "Smart TV" is ridiculous...


     


    the MSRP in the United States on Samsung's top of the line 55" LED TV is $3379, and the lowest ONLINE price i've seen is $2398


    LG's 55" flagship has an MSRP of $3599.


     


    http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-new-smart-tvs


    http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/all-tvs

  • Reply 29 of 141
    amador_oamador_o Posts: 67member


    I think $2k would work if the audio on this TV blew everyone else away.  Also the comment about remote placement of components makes sense to me.  I'll pay for not having to run wires when I wall mount.  I still haven't run wires through the walls on two of my TV's.

  • Reply 30 of 141
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member


    This is the same story going round and round and round and round without any new information each time.


     


    I'm not sure how "revolutionary" its going to be given that you can already buy motion & voice controlled TVs now and I very much doubt the cable companies will provide APIs for Apple to control their TV guides.


     


    I hope they mean "LED" screens rather than "LCD". LCD is old technology now.


     


    As for size starting at 42" that makes no sense. The most popular TV sizes are 32" and 37" around the world so I would expect them to go with 32", 42" and 55".


     


    I hope they've got some design help this time around. I seem to remember the last time Apple made a home entertainment device it was that hideous speaker thing.

     

  • Reply 31 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    jungmark wrote: »
    I still don't buy this TV from Apple. TVs have small margins it's not worth it. But if they do, Sammy will release one strikingly familiar to it and says "that's where the design convergence will be! It's just coincidental that Apple got there first."

     

    How much can the design change? Who cares what the back looks like because nobody ever sees it.
  • Reply 32 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    desarc wrote: »
    Anyone here who thinks $2K for a "Smart TV" is ridiculous...

    the MSRP in the United States on Samsung's top of the line 55" LED TV is $3379, and the lowest ONLINE price i've seen is $2398
    LG's 55" flagship has an MSRP of $3599.

    http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-new-smart-tvs
    http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/all-tvs

    And how many of those do you think they sell?
  • Reply 33 of 141
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post



    So- $1,100 or $1,200 for a 60" LG or Samsung Plasma, or $2,000 for a 55" LED. It better have some serious integration (cable box and Blu ray built in and amazingly intuitive to control)- or something else crazy I haven't thought of. Otherwise, plasma and apple tv for me.


     


    Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 

  • Reply 34 of 141
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    conrail wrote: »
    4K would be useless without 4K content.  There's a small amount of 4K stuff available online, but not enough to justify a 4K set.  Unless Apple is working with the industry to make HD obsolete already.  

    If it ever happens, it's going to a chicken and egg dilemma.

    The content does exist, but it's not available for sale, only available to movie theaters right now, not in a consumer format or distribution.

    jragosta wrote: »
    Considering that a 27" iMac is $2 K, why in the world would you expect a 55" iMac for the same price?
    Some people just can't be realistic in their demands.....

    Assuming it happens, I really don't think it's going to be a big iMac. I doubt it's going to be Intel-based, a current ARM chip is going to be more than enough for the job. Also, TV panels are a lot cheaper per unit area than computer panels, though a 55" TV panel probably costs more than the 27" panel that Apple uses, you probably have to go down a couple size classes to get price equivalency.
  • Reply 35 of 141
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member


    At $2000 it would still be a hobby, not anything that would sell in enough quantity to make any difference in Apple's revenues.  Maybe as one model in a fairly big product line, but it's hard to imagine a model at that price point being one of the main models.

  • Reply 36 of 141
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 



    They're also superior picture quality, especially for action and sports. I'll never settle for an LCD or LED again, and I sure as heck won't pay more money for lower quality.

  • Reply 37 of 141
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    I commented on an earlier thread about the forthcoming AppleTV, and just did a quick Google research on some of the things that I think will definitely be included in any Apple-branded TV to be successful.


    1. Remote replacement for all connected devices inkl. BluRay, Tivo, Cablebox, etc. I think Apple will sell their current remote stand-alone, but also update their iOS remote. While it could be a simple IR... an RF remote would be better, as stated in this glowing review of the Logitec Harmony One ~$160,00.


    2. Programming their own chip to interface with the consumer electronics channel (CEC) in HDMI cables to allow devices to communicate with each other


    3. Full use of the HDMI 1.3 spec, as well as DisplayPort.


    4. integrated iSight camera is a given, but what about Leap Motion?

    Personally, I think the Universal Remote is the biggest improvement that Apple can make to most any entertainment system.... and actually improve it rather easily.


    Current HDMI spec is 1.4, not 1.3.    


     


    The Harmony (and all the other "universal") remotes are a pain to program.     Go to any online site and there are pages and pages devoted to postings from people who have trouble getting it to do what they want.   I don't want to turn programming a remote into a hobby.        Apple's solution has to be far better and might be nothing more than and an iOS program + an accessory IR transmitter that is included with the TV.  The software must be completely flexible, support multiple command streams and support equipment that Apple doesn't like.      There are tons of other solutions out there for iOS and other devices, but they all require the purchase of IR transmitter boxes and they don't support every device.     I do think Apple can do a much better job.    Of course, for everything except turning the devices on and off (and sometimes that too), you can do everything over WiFi, but lots of devices don't have embedded WiFi.  If you have to buy an Apple Express (or equivalent) for each device, it can get expensive.     HDMI 1.4 includes Ethernet over HDMI, but not a single manufacturer has included this functionality as yet.    Maybe Apple should be the first.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zunx View Post


    Which TV sets have two DTT tuners for Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set? The Full PiP feature is extremely useful for channel surfing during commercials (ie., very handy for bridging commercial breaks). Thus, waiting for commercials to end on one show while flipping through channels to see what else is on. No cable/satellite/TiVo/DVR involved; just the TV set. After image quality, Full PiP is the most important feature of a TV for many consumers.



    Useless for most people as that only gets you the PiP for the over-the-air channels.    And that's if the sets have two tuners, which most don't.  On my high-end Sony, I can have cable in one window and over-the-air in another, but that's as far as it goes and once you put one image in the full window, you've got a million annoying clicks to get back to PiP.     


     


    What an Apple TV really needs, although I don't know how Apple can pull it off knowing the limitations of cable and satellite technology, is a display where you can display multiple live windows of content from many channels (or sources) and switch to the one you want.   Sort of like a live version of "Show Top Sites" in Safari.      

  • Reply 38 of 141
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Why would you compare the price of plasma to LED? How about an apples to apples comparison? Yes, the rumored Apple TV would still be more expensive, but not as much as you're suggesting.

    And, of course, the energy cost of operating the plasma TV will make it more expensive in the end, anyway.


     


    The energy cost would make it more expensive in the end?  How much TV do you watch?  Even at 10 hours a day- 365 days a year on the average watt consumption of Plasma vs LED, you would have to have the TV for 9 years.  If you watch it 5 hours a day (still a crapload)- it would be 18 years.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Uh, why don't you compare the predicted price with OTHER 55" LED TVs on the market, instead of plasmas, so that it's at least vaguely apples-to-apples? Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. 



     


    I was talking about me- not a LED to LED comparison- I think $2k is an underestimate if it were an Apple TV.  As others have mentioned your "smart" Sharps, Samsungs, LG LEDs are more than $2k @ 55"- so that would be insanely competitive and blow the others out of the water (LED vs LED that is)- which I wouldn't expect Apple to do- they'd be around $2,500+ if anything.


     


    But my side note was that to this day I don't understand anyone who picks a large LED over a Plasma.  A slightly thinner TV that costs twice the price and you get an inferior picture with lighter blacks and duller color reproduction.  Oh, but you do save ~$30/year in electricity. It makes no sense.

  • Reply 39 of 141
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


    I hope they mean "LED" screens rather than "LCD". LCD is old technology now.



    LED back light. Some manufacturers are calling their displays LED but they are the same LCD with LED back light.

  • Reply 40 of 141
    slinbergslinberg Posts: 34member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Considering that a 27" iMac is $2 K, why in the world would you expect a 55" iMac for the same price?

    Some people just can't be realistic in their demands.....


     


    Because $2000 for a TV is absurd... even one with a little Apple logo on it.


     


    But hey, if you've got that kind of money to burn, go for it.

Sign In or Register to comment.