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

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 141
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    A slightly thinner TV that costs twice the price and you get an inferior picture with lighter blacks and duller color reproduction. 



    I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.


     


    Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.

  • Reply 42 of 141
    bluefish86bluefish86 Posts: 115member


    I just hope it comes smaller than 55" too. Not all of us have massive living rooms.... something that size would look out of place turned off and make me motion sick turned on.  I suspect this would be especially important outside north america...

  • Reply 43 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by slinberg View Post


    $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.



    How much do the Samsung 8000 Series SmartTVs cost?  Well, here are the numbers


     


    Model           Screen Size      List        Discount


    UN46ES8000    46                $2,999    $2,197


    UN55ES8000    55                $3,749    $2,697


    UN60ES8000    60                $4,399    $3,097


     


    This is Samsung's flagship line of LED 3D HDTVs with internet, smart navigations, gesture control, face recognition, web browser, etc.  From my perspective, Apple would probably go after this end of the TV market, since the Apple TV box is a simple, low cost solution for those that wouldn't normally spend lots of money on a TV, therefor would buy a Apple TV to get access to rentals, streaming, etc. without spending lots of money.  BUt for those that want more features and know they have to spend this kind of money to get a higher quality product, this is the market I think Apple will be going after.  JUST MY SPECULATION.

  • Reply 44 of 141
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,735member
    eideard wrote: »
    All that would be needed to move me over at that price/size would be a 4K screen.  Afraid that would change the price a lot, though.

    Just wait for the Samsung rip-off to appear. It will be almost like the Apple product and cost less. Then you can "move over" to the winning side.
  • Reply 45 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post


     


    I'll second this!


     


    55" should be mid-range. I'm ready for 60"+!



    Agreed. The smallest TV in my house is 56", the largest 65".


     


    Unless Apple comes out with at least 65", no sale in my household regardless of all the bells and whistles. And, a plasma option would be nice (bought my first plasma recently: LCD looks stale by comparison).

  • Reply 46 of 141
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by slinberg View Post


     


    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.



    Actually this price point seems low to me. My guess is Apple will compete against Samsung series 8000 3D Smart App TV. My guess is they will not go edge lit they will go full array led. Both will have facial recognition and gestures. Currently Samsung 8000 series at 55" MSRP is about 3400.00, however most of the time the price point is about 2500.00, I believe the 8000 series is still edge lit which is cheaper then fully array, however I could be wrong on that its their high end TV so it may be full array. 





     

  • Reply 47 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member


    Now, if you look at the guts inside the Samsung ES8000, the quality of the motherboards inside are not the highest quality.  They use fairly inexpensive PCB and the power supply isn't exactly what i would consider a high quality power supply.  Power supplies, especially for TVs are VERY important as they provide the power to drive the screen.  Usually when something goes wrong with a TV, it is usually the power supply that goes first.  The logic board is the other portion that is susceptible as well.  Apple, FORTUNATELY, uses high quality PCBs and components and rarely has failure.

  • Reply 48 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,278member

    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 are not. Not anymore.

  • Reply 49 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    drblank wrote: »
    How much do the Samsung 8000 Series SmartTVs cost?  Well, here are the numbers

    Model           Screen Size      List        Discount
    UN46ES8000    46                $2,999    $2,197
    UN55ES8000    55                $3,749    $2,697
    UN60ES8000    60                $4,399    $3,097

    This is Samsung's flagship line of LED 3D HDTVs with internet, smart navigations, gesture control, face recognition, web browser, etc.  From my perspective, Apple would probably go after this end of the TV market, since the Apple TV box is a simple, low cost solution for those that wouldn't normally spend lots of money on a TV, therefor would buy a Apple TV to get access to rentals, streaming, etc. without spending lots of money.  BUt for those that want more features and know they have to spend this kind of money to get a higher quality product, this is the market I think Apple will be going after.  JUST MY SPECULATION.

    So much for "no one would ever pay $2,000 for a TV" and "$2,000 is absurd".
  • Reply 50 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.


     


    Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.



    This is simply not true. The sets you looked at may have had some type of default setting. It can be easily adjusted.

  • Reply 51 of 141
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I think the color seems duller on the plasma. It may be more accurate color but the LCD is much brighter with more saturation and contrast.


     


    Some people prefer LCD some plasma. The plasma does have blacker blacks and overall is more accurate color reproduction but it is not as bright.



    Kind of true, but wrong about colors.  Colors are definitely more vibrant with Plasmas- maybe you didn't see a calibrated one?  Or an over calibrated LED maybe?  Really- the only reason I see the benefit to the LED would be in rooms where the TV faces a window or outdoors in restaurants, etc.  But I guess I shouldn't complain, I like the low cost of Plasmas for the better picture- better to let the advertising push what profits them the most and let those who research get the good deals.  :)


     


    That all being said- if Apple makes something integrated- I'm all over it.  I have a media room with a 110" screen if I want to watch a movie or really care about a sports game.  When its just normal TV watching (which I do more of), and I have a way to watch it and change between components, easier navigation, etc.- I'll buy it.  But if its just a 55" LED with an Apple TV in the box and I still have to plug in my U-verse box and Blu-Ray player- then I'll take my $1,500, have a better TV, and say thanks but no thanks.

  • Reply 52 of 141
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Agreed. The smallest TV in my house is 56", the largest 65".


     


    Unless Apple comes out with at least 65", no sale in my household regardless of all the bells and whistles. And, a plasma option would be nice (bought my first plasma recently: LCD looks stale my comparison).



    The size of the TV doesn't determine high, mid or low range. Quality of the panel, edge lit vs full array, 3D and single or dual core determines the range. A Samsung 8000 series or a Sony XBR series in any size is high end both with a price point well above 2000.00 in 55". In some cases over 2000.00 for 46". 

  • Reply 53 of 141
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post



    A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.


    Top-of-the line sets:


    Sony HX929 55" currently goes for $3500 (although it has sold for as low as $2400).  


    Panasonic VT50 55" (Plasma) currently goes for $2500.


    Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD 60" (they don't make them any smaller) goes for about $4900.


    Samsung "Smart TV" LED 8000 series in 55" goes for $3750.   LED 7550 and 7500 series in 55" goes for $3380.


     


    And prices are expected to rise 10% next year as all the big TV manufacturers are losing tons of money.  Sony might get out of the TV business entirely, although what they'll probably do is OEM someone else's set.


     


    Yes, there are plenty of cheaper sets, but they're mostly crap.   Judging by Apple's history, if the TV is real (and I still have my doubts), do you think they'll be priced closer to the top of the market or at the bottom? I think we all know the answer to that.  


     


    And as others have posted, what makes you think the set can be priced any lower than an iMac?     A 27" iMac is $1700.    You can take out a few hundred $ in parts (like the Hard Disk and extensive memory) that it probably won't need, but you're doubling the screen size and panels are expensive.    If the set were great, $2000 for 55" would be a bargain, but I think that if it's real, Apple might do things like severely limit ports and/or in the interest of simplifying the user experience, eliminating the extensive picture controls that most sets have.   While I agree that those UIs are terrible, you're not getting a great picture without being able to calibrate the set.   I would never buy a TV that couldn't be properly color calibrated, regardless of the other functionality included.     


     


    And by the way, "Apple's going to sell a phone for $200?  No one will buy that because you can get a phone for free or almost free!"  


     


    ---


    As for screen sizes, since homes (and even apartments) tend to be larger in the U.S., people are going for larger screen sizes than in other places around the world.    Most sets sold in the U.S. are now in the 55" range with a big push towards 65" and above.    That's a big change from just two years ago when the most popular size set at J&R in New York City was 37".       But in the UK and places like it, smaller sets are more popular.


     


           

  • Reply 54 of 141
    davdav Posts: 102member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I suspect there is something radically innovative involved no one has figured out.  So far everything seems to be simply Apple TV built into an Apple branded TV (Apple Monitor), I have to believe there is way more than that coming (if it's coming ...).


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tailpipe View Post


     


    This view has to be right. There would be little point in Apple entering the TV game at this stage unless it had some pretty cool new technology to bring to the party. 


     


    What could that be? Hardware revolution: Screen resolution, 3D, or perhaps it is software driven: the way TV content is distributed? Something like a new TV service as radical as iTunes to rival the likes of Sky broadcasting?



     


    I envision the new Apple TV as an internet TV service - television programming available on any iOS or OSX device.  Airplay could put that on your family room TV.

  • Reply 55 of 141
    focherfocher Posts: 687member


    I predict the 7" "iPad" is really the bundled remote for the TV. And the TV will be a single cable - integrated power and mini DP. The mini DP will hook into a breakout box where you can plug in any other HDMI components. Of course, it will include all of the AppleTV functionality along with Siri and FaceTime.

  • Reply 56 of 141
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


     


     


    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.



     


    Second that. Setting up and controlling a TV plus DVD plus receiver is a freakin mess for most people, and I get tired of having to do it for most of the people in my life.


     


    BTW, I bought a Harmony 700 (IR plus RF) controller for myself because they sold my father-in-law one at Best Buy, and I knew I was going to have to provide tech support. Plus it was highly rated - scripts and all that, that will turn all the right things on to the right settings and the like with only a single labelled button on the controller's screen (like "watch TV with surround sound").


     


    Unfortunately, it's a frustrating, buggy, inexplicably inconsistent mess. I learned how to use it, and it's pretty much been sitting in it's cradle since - it easier to use the Comcast remote and set the other things manually than to constantly fiddle with the thing ("did that fix the problem?" No. No, it didn't.)


     


    I think Steve could have produced what I'm hoping for, and I would buy a new TV just for that. I hope Cook is up to the job.

  • Reply 57 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by focher View Post

    I predict the 7" "iPad" is really the bundled remote for the TV. And the TV will be a single cable - integrated power and mini DP. The mini DP will hook into a breakout box where you can plug in any other HDMI components. Of course, it will include all of the AppleTV functionality along with Siri and FaceTime.


     


    Why in the world would Apple make a remote control that costs at least $100 when they can just bundle their current remote (which would do absolutely anything you'd need) and tell people to use their iPad/iPod touch/iPhone if they want more control?


     


    Why would a television have FaceTime and why would anyone want that on a television? Do you want people to see you cocked back in a Lay-z-boy in nothing but boxers, Cheetos dust down your front? 


     


    And I think that one show (was it 30 Rock?) concisely showed why Siri doesn't make much sense.


     


    And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?


     


    I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. image

  • Reply 58 of 141
    irelandireland Posts: 17,771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eideard View Post


    All that would be needed to move me over at that price/size would be a 4K screen.  Afraid that would change the price a lot, though.



    4K screen is no good without 4K content and that's YEARS!!! away.

  • Reply 59 of 141
    irelandireland Posts: 17,771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    I still don't buy this TV from Apple. TVs have small margins it's not worth it.

     



    Do you like crow?

  • Reply 60 of 141
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Why in the world would Apple make a remote control that costs at least $100 when they can just bundle their current remote (which would do absolutely anything you'd need) and tell people to use their iPad/iPod touch/iPhone if they want more control?



     


    Exactly.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     


     


    Why would a television have FaceTime and why would anyone want that on a television? Do you want people to see you cocked back in a Lay-z-boy in nothing but boxers, Cheetos dust down your front? 



     


    Not to mention you would have to be at the perfect viewing angle to even be seen.  How about when you're face timing an iPhone- as they see you in landscape mode as a dot in a giant room.  What's the point?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    And I think that one show (was it 30 Rock?) concisely showed why Siri doesn't make much sense.


     


    And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?


     


    I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. image



     


    Siri could work as long as its on the remote, has to have a button held while using it, holding the button down temporarily mutes or turns it down to a reasonable volume (couldn't help myself), and has good noise canceling.  That'd work better than using Siri on your iPhone in a crowded area- which you can still do.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    And WHY would they put Mini DisplayPort on a product when Thunderbolt obsoleted it last year?


     



     


    Pointless- correct.  But I would assume thunderbolt would be pointless too on a TV- as if they would allow you to use an external hard drive instead.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I think we're past the "why make a TV at all" stage since analysts keep ignoring that there's no real explanation. image



     


    It could work, but thats a huge could.  The analysts haven't given legitimate ways it could work- they just spit it out- the forums have much better ideas.

Sign In or Register to comment.