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



  • Reply 61 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.

    Why do people insist on confusing "I don't like this idea" with "no one could ever like this idea"?

    There are lots of people who would like FaceTime on the TV. You're watching TV and your kid calls. Simply hitting a button to have a FaceTime call on TV would be very convenient.

    And whether 30 Rock likes it or not is irrelevant. A lot of people see that there might be some possibility.
  • Reply 62 of 141
    dmarcootdmarcoot Posts: 191member

    I don't why it would take 6 months for it to be ready after it is announced. The only reason they pre announced the iPhone and maybe the iPad was that they couldn't keep it under wraps once it was submitted to the FCC for approval. If they have to wait 6 months there will be Samsung clones on the market in S. Korea 2 months after Apple announces.

  • Reply 63 of 141
    irelandireland Posts: 17,771member

    I see them releasing a 46" for $1,299 and a 60" for $1,999

  • Reply 64 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

    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.


    I don't think (and if I'm wrong, everyone, speak up!) that anyone but myself has talked about an actual revolution in television. I've talked about change on the same level as the iTunes Music Store in 2003, something that would actually break the hold cable and satellite providers have on us and which would usher in a new age of television and what it MEANS to have 'television programming'.


    Anything that Apple does that is short of that vision is just "hobby" stage. And there's nothing about this change that requires an integrated television, either.


    There are really two big changes that Apple could do, one to actually revolutionize television programming and the other to "revolutionize" televisions themselves. The latter, of course, being the less significant change.


    The television revolution (the latter) would be to give us affordable (AM)OLED Super Hi-Vision screens before anyone else. I've heard of no plans for resolutions beyond Super Hi-Vision, which makes sense because no one will ever need them. 4k is actually a stopgap.


    Japan is working toward it and actually have been for years now. They'll be broadcasting in it (in earnest; they already are, some) before anyone else. The London Olympics are being partially shot in Super Hi-Vision, too.

  • Reply 65 of 141
    sol77sol77 Posts: 203member


    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.....



    But whether one can realistically expect a 55inch iMac for $2000 is not really his point, nor does one have to be feasible for him to be right.  His point is that once you get into that price range, you're entering an entirely new world...consumer expectation is higher because the cost has reached a breaking point in regard to that kind of technology.  A 55inch iMac for $2000 doesn't have to exist for me to be right about my estimation of worth.  If I'm going to spend $2000, it needs to be usable as a computer in every way.  I'm not paying an extra $1000 for a 55inch TV with a slick user interface.  That's ridiculous. 


    You're talking to him like he's an idiot.  He simply told you what he would pay $2000 dollars for.  He didn't make any claims that it could be done.  It was an entirely different point he was making. He's being a good capitalist - he's stating what he is willing to pay $2000 for.  If, as you say, that can't be done, that makes his point - he won't be buying.  He wasn't making demands or talking about realism.  He was simply talking about what he'd be willing to pay $2000 for.  His point means quite a bit to any TV manufacturer.  I'm right there with him.  I don't demand, but I do require a $2000 TV to do quite a bit for me, including serve as a fully functional computer.  If it can't, I won't buy.  There's nothing unrealistic here.  It has to do with knowing what $2000 dollars is worth to ME.

  • Reply 66 of 141
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    amador_o wrote: »
    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.

    I haven't either. I bought those paintable channels that you run the wires through. I don't why I bothered though because between the Wii, Xbox, kinect, controllers, games and what not you can't even see the wall underneath the tv. ;-)

    Wireless would be nice but how realistic is that?
  • Reply 67 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    mstone wrote: »
    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.

    For me it's too bright, especially when it's an outdoors shot. I got a headache while watching one in a store
  • Reply 68 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    They are not. Not anymore.

    Depends on the size, plasmas under 50" are still inexpensive but the higher sizes now come with 3D built in plus other new tech has driven up their price.
  • Reply 69 of 141

    Welcome to the new "Amercia".

  • Reply 70 of 141
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,504member


    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 ...).


    I'm betting on specialized content from the iTunes store; Interactive content pretty much the same way they went with books in iBooks, making them more interactive.


    iTunes content will contain proprietary tags that will allow for embedding links or information (and iAds) that is context aware. For instance, say you've downloaded a Nova episode from iTunes and the show mentions a subject you've never heard of or don't understand, the file could contain a link or a brief video explaining it. The viewer could "hit" the description at which point the episode pauses and the TV brings up the video or text. When done, it fades back to the episode and begins playing.  Or depending on the type of show or feed, the TV could pop up a translucent window with more information about what's going on.


    I also think they're working on an open standard with others in the industry to make broadcast or cable feeds able to do the same thing.


    Adding a pretty interface, or apps, or different ways of controlling the TV, doesn't change the overall experience. Changing the content and creating devices that support it, will be a paradigm shift and the kind of disruption Apple excels at.


    Some iTunes movies and albums have "extras" now. So, I don't see this being an improbable feature.

  • Reply 71 of 141
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Cook says Apple will keep pulling the TV string and see where it takes them. Munster keeps pulling people's chains to see how far he can yank them.
  • Reply 72 of 141
    magic_almagic_al Posts: 325member

    This rumor needs a new screenshot besides House.

  • Reply 73 of 141
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,889member


    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

    Do you like crow?

    All i'm saying is the TV market is different. People get cell phones every 2-3 years. People get computers every 4-5 years. People don't buy tvs unless their current ones fail.

  • Reply 74 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member


    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 is meant for the cinema, not home use.  Sorry, it'll take at LEAST 10 years before they pump out 4K video to the home.  Who has the screen size for 4K?  I mean, they are JUST getting out 1080p content as a more popular standard and that'll still take about 5 to 10 years until everyone has 1080p screens.  The majority of HD TVs are 720p still.


    I mean, they still haven't got HD audio that we can download yet, it's pretty much Dolby Digital.  These music/film companies are just milking each platform as much as they can.  They want us to buy a copy of each piece of content we have in as many different formats OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.  Heck, there are albums, that I bought the original album version, then they come out with CD, then a remastered CD, then a SACD, then a DVD-A, etc., etc.  It's the same thing for movies.  FIrst the VHS, then the DVD, then BluRay, then it's going to be BluRay 4K.  AHHHHH!!

  • Reply 75 of 141
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    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

    Just because you think a TV set is a bad idea doesn't mean it's not true.

  • Reply 76 of 141
    moxommoxom Posts: 326member


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    So much for "no one would ever pay $2,000 for a TV" and "$2,000 is absurd".

    I just sold a Samsung 55" ES8000 yesterday (with a 27" iMac) for just over £4000!

    Last week it was a 70" Sharp 3D LED TV for £3500


    People are happy to pay this sort of money - trust me!


    I hope the rumours of an Apple TV set are true - they will fly out of the door.



  • Reply 77 of 141
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member


    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.

    The brighter picture is often referred to as "torch mode" is just to catch people's eyes in the showroom. Many newer TVs will ask if you prefer the "home" mode to turn down the brightness.

  • Reply 78 of 141
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,331member


    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    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.



    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.


    No, it won't be $2500+. The basic fact you can't seem to understand is that while a company like Samsung has a few dozen TV models, obviously its highest end ones are going to be aimed for a niche market and not the mainstream. Apple is not going to go to the trouble of creating its own set if doesn't plan to market it as a mainstream device. It will have one, MAYBE 2 models at most, and they will need to be priced extremely competitively with whats out there. One thing Apple can't afford is this product to fail, not in financial terms, but in terms of damaging the brand name. People now expect every new Apple product to do insanely well, and if this TV does not it will be spun into the narrative of Apple going down the shitter without SJ. Apple can't afford that narrative, which is why I believe this needs to be priced every attractively and needs to be a good value proposition to lessen any chance of failure. If they do come out with a TV, it will DEFINITELY be priced below $2500- significantly so. I'd bet my account on it. 

  • Reply 79 of 141
    Read all the comments here and learned a few things. This is my first post btw.

    What no one really mentioned was, tvs aren't bought often. iPhones, iPads are boughts ever couple of years. Computers are bought ever 3 or 4 let's say. But tvs are far less frequent. I don't think a lot of people will buy one if some sort of subscription fee is attached to the tv in addition to the cable or dish subscriptions that people are already paying unless (miraculously) apple basically takes over that too.

    I don't think it would be profitable to just have people buying bits and peices of things to watch on a full blown apple tv set that they can perfectly do on any idevice or laptop (Mac or PC). Apple wont make a tv for hardware purposes only IMO. Apple wont make a deal with content companies to somehow add an "apple tv fee" to their bills at the end of the month. Everything will go through iTunes.
  • Reply 80 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,276member


    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

    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". 

    What the heck are you going on about!? Who said anything about a "high, mid or low range"? Did you intend to reply to some other post?

Sign In or Register to comment.