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

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,276member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    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.


    I was responding to a blanket statement that asserted: "Yeah, plasmas are dirt cheap, we all know that. "


     


    I know all about high-end, large, 3D plasmas. I have one. (And, believe it or not, the 3D is quite amazing.... but can't have it on for long spells).

  • Reply 82 of 141
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post




    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!!



    There are better reasons for changing the movie medium than making you buy the movie again, most importantly better picture quality which most consumers would agree is a good thing. Blu-ray players still play DVD's which allow consumers to actually not have to buy the content again. Again, most consumers would agree is a good thing.

  • Reply 83 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    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.


    One of the problems with plasma is that they have to be calibrated every so often and they are very delicate when shipping and handling.  They can't put the TV sideways, otherwise it could damage it.  B&O's 85 and 103 inch are around the $100K price range and not many people can afford those, if they could they would probably elect to have a projection system in a dedicated home theater, or they are just stupid rich and want the most expensive TV's you can get.  They are cool, but at a price only a handful can afford and actually pay for.

  • Reply 84 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,276member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    This rumor needs a new screenshot besides House.



    And a new rendering of a TV that doesn't look like yesterday's Apple Cinema display.....


     


    AI, please put Ireland on the job?

  • Reply 85 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

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


     


    I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion from that post. If anything, you should be calling into question the thought that it will ever happen, given the track record of people who say "when, not if" for Apple products.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

    There are better reasons for changing the movie medium than making you buy the movie again, most importantly better picture quality which most consumers would agree is a good thing.


     


    Unless, of course, you can't see the difference anyway, which many would have you believe.

  • Reply 86 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    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?



    Actually, the Sharp Elite product is far more expensive than the Samsung ES8000 or the Sony Bravia SBR.  Sharp Elites/Aquos as well as B&O can go from $5,000 to $9,000.

  • Reply 87 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    Actually, the Sharp Elite product is far more expensive than the Samsung ES8000 or the Sony Bravia SBR.  Sharp Elites/Aquos as well as B&O can go from $5,000 to $9,000.



    If you think about high end, usually the specialty home theater stores will carry the REAL high end.  The typical electronics super stores carry the low end to the medium priced products for TVs.  The people that buy high end want personal attention, they don't like going to big department stores and they are typically those that will pay someone to have the system delivered, installed, and setup because they have the money and don't have the time to do it themselves.  So, when you walk into a Best Buy and talk to the salesperson about high end.  They will talk about the high end THEY carry, but typically won't know much, if anything, about the REAL high end since they don't carry it.  Same thing with stereo equipment and home theater systems.  Even Magnolia doesn't carry the high end, they carry the entry level high end.  The REAL high end is only carried by specialty stores that are typically independently run.  First, one must define HIGH end.

  • Reply 88 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    slurpy wrote: »
    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. 

    Regarding the bolded:

    Maybe no one has told you about an Apple product called the iPhone. When Apple introduced it, Jobs stated that the goal was to get 1-2% of the mobile phone market. That's hardly mainstream.

    Or maybe you could look at the Mac. Apple has less than 5% of the worldwide market.

    AirPort? Same thing. Only a tiny percentage of the router business.

    I think you're missing what Apple's all about.
  • Reply 89 of 141
    peter236peter236 Posts: 254member


    Apple has to catch up to these Samsung smart TVs.

  • Reply 90 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

    Apple has to catch up to these Samsung smart TVs.


     


    Why? For what reason? And why does this 'catching up' require the introduction of an actual TV?



    The Apple TV's interface, warts and all, is already a better experience than any of these smart TVs'. Add control-over-HDMI for volume and such and a television set becomes a pointless expense.

  • Reply 91 of 141
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Munster also believes that an Apple television would have its own App Store for games, music, video and other content.


     


    Tim Cook said this on Apple's FYQ2 earnings call on 4/24/2012:


     


    "Anything can be forced to converge, but products are about tradeoffs.


    You can converge a toaster and refrigerator, but those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."



     


    He said the same thing at D10 recently.  And although both of those anti-convergence statements were made in the context of pad vs. desktop computing devices, I think Tim could be conditioning the media for a similar statement about the non-convergence of computing devices and television.  By issuing anti-convergence sound bites and having them quoted widely in the tech media, he and Apple must might be setting the stage for the big reveal.


     


    Maybe the "lean forward" computing paradigm and the "lean back" TV viewing paradigms really can't successfully converge.  Maybe there will be a totally new category of app, specifically built just for HDTV.  And maybe those apps will only be allowed to fall into two categories: games and media streaming apps.  And who knows what other huge differences there will be between TV-only apps and iPad/iPhone apps?


     


    I hate to say it, but another (potential) vast difference between iOS apps and TV apps will probably be iAd.  It's quite possible that all TV apps will be free and iAd-subsidized.  And iAd might replace conventional commercials in all content viewed on Apple TV and whatever the Apple HDTV solution might be.  That alone might be enough to prevent iOS apps and TV apps (and their respective App Stores) from converging.

  • Reply 92 of 141
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member


    I'm with you. It's just not going to happen, unless something magical we haven't thought of paves the way.

  • Reply 93 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    If you think about high end, usually the specialty home theater stores will carry the REAL high end.  The typical electronics super stores carry the low end to the medium priced products for TVs.  The people that buy high end want personal attention, they don't like going to big department stores and they are typically those that will pay someone to have the system delivered, installed, and setup because they have the money and don't have the time to do it themselves.  So, when you walk into a Best Buy and talk to the salesperson about high end.  They will talk about the high end THEY carry, but typically won't know much, if anything, about the REAL high end since they don't carry it.  Same thing with stereo equipment and home theater systems.  Even Magnolia doesn't carry the high end, they carry the entry level high end.  The REAL high end is only carried by specialty stores that are typically independently run.  First, one must define HIGH end.



    I personally think that if Apple does put out HDTV's, that they will try to figure out a way to make it compete (quality of picture/mfg/styling) to that of Loewe, Sharp Elite Pro and B&O, but have it priced more like the Samsung ES8000 series is my guess.  They WILL NOT put out something with cheap PCBs and electronics.  It won't be made from plastic or cheap metal and they will try to figure out a way to make it a nicely styled product to go along with the rest of their product line, but to be able to compete, they'll have to bring the price down below $4,000 for a 60 or 65 inch screen.


     


    The unfortunate thing is that the typical HDTV buyer THINKS that $4,000 is too expensive and a waste of money because they are more concerned with size rather than picture quality or quality of the components because they are easily brainwashed by the mass merchandisers. In ANYTHING, there is a problem with diminishing returns.  In order to get high quality or a small improvement, it costs a LOT more.  Just like cars.  You can get a great car for $50K, but to get something a little better, it's going to cost $100K, then to get something a little better than that, you have to spend $250K and to get a little better you have to spend $500K and then to get something a little better you have to spend $1Mil.  Well, Mercedes will sell tons of $50K cars, less $100K, a bunch of $200K compared to Bugattii selling a few $1Mil cars. Same rules apply to TV and stereo equipment, but there is a market, it just depends on how many Apple plans on selling.  They have to determine what size screens, but at what price point that makes sense.   The sub $2,000 TVs aren't that great in terms of quality and reliability.

  • Reply 94 of 141
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Unless, of course, you can't see the difference anyway, which many would have you believe.



    Not sure if a person could not see the difference between HD and SD would really be in the market for a high end HDTV? And the person I responded to made reference to VHS, so if they can see the difference from that, better just save the money and watch video on an iPad.

  • Reply 95 of 141
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    One of the problems with plasma is that they have to be calibrated every so often and they are very delicate when shipping and handling.  They can't put the TV sideways, otherwise it could damage it.  B&O's 85 and 103 inch are around the $100K price range and not many people can afford those, if they could they would probably elect to have a projection system in a dedicated home theater, or they are just stupid rich and want the most expensive TV's you can get.  They are cool, but at a price only a handful can afford and actually pay for.





    Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?

  • Reply 96 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member


    $2,000 for a 55 inch TV?  They would have to get the panels awfully cheap in order to do that.  Look at the Thunderbolt monitor.  That thing has a 27 inch screen size for $1000.  how can Apple put out a Smart TV with a decent 55 inch panel for only $2,000?  Impossible.  Unless it is a cheap plastic case, a cheap panel, and cheap motherboards.  It sounds like they just got their 420 card.

  • Reply 97 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post




    Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?



    Check out the B&O 85 and 100 inch models.  They have a calibration camera that automatically pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen.  It's FREAKING COOL, but it is EXPENSIVE.


     


    Plus you have to pay a ton of money for someone to come out to your house to see if the doorway is big enough, to see if the floor is strong enough, and it gets shipped in a BIG wooden crate and they probably have at least a couple of trained factory guys come out, bring it into your house, uncrate it, set it up and run through all of the options.  It's meant for people that have TONS of money and want the coolest stuff.  (But, I wouldn't buy their sound systems, they only have marginal high end audio, but it does have the cool factor).

  • Reply 98 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post

    Look at the Thunderbolt monitor.  That thing has a 27 inch screen size for $1000.


     


    TV panels and monitor panels are entirely different worlds. Note also that the Thunderbolt display is a higher resolution than a TV would be.

  • Reply 99 of 141
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,276member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post




    Yes, a big sheet of glass should not be transported upright and not flat but why would plasma TV need to be calibrated ever so often? Is someone messing with the plasma settings?



    He doesn't know what he's talking about. Newer plasmas don't.

  • Reply 100 of 141
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    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?


     


    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



    Facetime?  Well, I think that a lot of corporations, hospitals, government, and schools would buy these things and use them for video conferencing.   See, think outside the home, but in other environments.

Sign In or Register to comment.