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

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 141
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member


    ...

  • Reply 102 of 141
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member

    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?



    I did, sorry about that.

  • Reply 103 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post

    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.


     


    I've read that businesses are terrified of that idea and wouldn't want it at all. Perhaps I read wrong.

  • Reply 104 of 141
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    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).





    Oh, some 85 and 100 inch plasma TV has a camera that pops out every 100 hours to calibrate the screen and therefore plasma TVs have to be calibrated every so often and are very delicate when shipping and handling. Um, I don't think so.

  • Reply 105 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    drblank wrote: »
    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.

    Why, when there's much less expensive alternatives
  • Reply 106 of 141
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    drblank wrote: »
    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).

    I think it's likely that B&O is selling a solution to a problem that might not really exist to help sell their product. If it does exist, then any LCD with a phosphor based backlight (non-RGB LED and fluorescent tube backlights) would also need a similar periodic adjustment because phosphors shift in color and intensity as it is used.
  • Reply 107 of 141
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 1,245member
    drblank wrote: »
    Apple, FORTUNATELY, uses high quality PCBs and components and rarely has failure.
    http://www.cultofmac.com/61338/nvidia-settles-class-action-lawsuit-over-macbook-pro-gpus/
  • Reply 108 of 141
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 1,245member
    scotty321 wrote: »
    A $2,000 tv?!?! Yeah, good luck trying to sell that thing.
    People were quite happy paying $4K for a 55" TV only 5 years ago...
  • Reply 109 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


     


    I'll direct your attention to the third to last word in his sentence.

  • Reply 110 of 141
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member


    I'm not saying Apple isn't coming out with a nicely sized HD TV, but I wonder why they would even try. Samsung and Sony are going to try to increase prices 10% so they can make a little coin. If I were Apple, I'd stick with the external box. Let Samsung and Sony and others crank out the low margin TVs and instead focus on providing content. I want to watch what I want, when I want.


     


    Plasma, LCD, OLED, 60", 80", 100". This industry obsoletes their own products quickly while chasing margins down to zero. Apple can do a lot with the little black box, and make money doing it. It's in the same way they do not make their own CPUs. They build nice hardware that goes around that motherboard and provide compelling secret sauce to make it work.

  • Reply 111 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bugsnw wrote: »
    I'm not saying Apple isn't coming out with a nicely sized HD TV, but I wonder why they would even try. Samsung and Sony are going to try to increase prices 10% so they can make a little coin. If I were Apple, I'd stick with the external box. Let Samsung and Sony and others crank out the low margin TVs and instead focus on providing content. I want to watch what I want, when I want.

    Plasma, LCD, OLED, 60", 80", 100". This industry obsoletes their own products quickly while chasing margins down to zero. Apple can do a lot with the little black box, and make money doing it. It's in the same way they do not make their own CPUs. They build nice hardware that goes around that motherboard and provide compelling secret sauce to make it work.

    Your argument applies equally to phones and computers. No one else (besides Samsung) is making money in phones and the profit in computers is very low for most companies. Apple has demonstrated the ability to make money even in markets where few, if any, other companies are.

    I certainly can't say whether Apple should introduce a TV because I don't have access to the market information and I also don't have any idea what technology they'd bring to the table. But the argument that they shouldn't enter the market because some other companies are losing money doesn't wash.
  • Reply 112 of 141
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


     


    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.



     


    Why can't Apple do this with the existing AppleTV?

  • Reply 113 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    Why can't Apple do this with the existing AppleTV?


     


    They can. People just want to waste their money on a TV because it has an Apple logo, apparently.


     


    Oi! People planning to respond negatively to my statement: I'm an Apple evangelist in everything but official title. Shame they don't give that out officially anymore, isn't it? 


     


    I sure as heck hope Apple doesn't think about getting into the accessory market again… 


     


    A television set is an accessory.

  • Reply 114 of 141
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member


    I think many on here agree with you. My gut just says to stick with the magic external box that sprinkles Apple pixie dust upon any TV, offering what we want without them having to spend a lot to make a little.


     


    I remember when Apple moved to Intel from PPC and Steve Jobs was on stage, allaying our fears that Apple would not be able to upgrade quickly enough to stay relevant, allowing the PC competition to stay one or more steps ahead. He promised more rapid updates in the hardware, keeping up with the latest and greatest.


     


    I know the arguments both ways. And I do feel that Apple has intentions to come out with a big TV. I know the arguments we make apply to a lot of other products, as Jragosta points out. But it seems the higher up Apple goes on retail, the slower the updates materialize. So it was easier to imagine Apple's presence in the music payer market. But Apple really shined in the high end because it turned out people were willing to pay for the features it offered. They didn't dabble in the low end until much later.


     


    With PCs, Apple stayed true to its word. The Intel iMacs kept pace with the hardware innovations and offered a compelling value. The MacPros were upgraded less often and by the end of their life seemed outdated and relatively expensive.


     


    The good news is TVs do not see rapid turnover. But innovations do come quickly. I can imagine we'll be watching Apple, wondering when they are going to update their XYZ line to match the recent innovations from another player. It just seems like Apple is going to have to spend a lot to make a little.


     


    I wonder if they simply focused on the magic box if it wouldn't be more profitable in the long run.

  • Reply 115 of 141
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    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.


     


    I'm going to hazard that these high end TVs are far less than 1% of the market.  Likewise with all the videophile HDTVs.


     


    The iPhone was and is a mainstream device.  The high end of mainstream but mainstream none the less.  They aren't selling Vertu like phones.


     


     


    The Mac is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling supercomputers or embedded computers for missiles.


     


    The Airport is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling long haul DWDM gear.


     


    You like telling folks they don't know what Apple is about but you write complete nonsense like this.


     


    You could argue that they will price the mythical top end Apple HDTV like a top end Sony 64.5" XDR for $5500 but there will be a $2999 60" model and a $1999 55" model to make sure they sell a lot more than the 2.7M aTVs sold in 1H 2012 just like there is a $1199 iMac.  


     


    For reference, the Sony 60" LED KDL-60EX723 is $2299 on the Sony Store with a free wall mount.  The 54.6" KDL-55BX520 is a mere $1199 and comes with a free wall mount.


     


    An XBR quality 55" Apple branded HDTV for $1500-$2000 would sell reasonably well and be a mainstream product.


     


     


    Apple won't touch the uber high end market (videophile and/or folks with tons of money) because they sell to consumers and not installers.  Pretty much all the top end video gear is sold via installers and installers insist on a protected channel.


     


    I still think the idea is silly but meh...they could sell XBR quality at mid range prices and completely hose the TV makers like Samsung and Sony.  The margins on the $3500 54.6" XBR HX929 are probably very comfortably above 30%.  


     


    The only reason I can think of is if the IGZO panels are exceptionally good for TVs and the new Sharp/Foxconn partnership has allowed Apple to corner the market on this.  The "core" technology for HDTVs.  I don't buy it though.  If it were that big a competitive advantage Sharp wouldn't be all that willing to share. 

  • Reply 116 of 141
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

    I wonder if they simply focused on the magic box if it wouldn't be more profitable in the long run.


     


    And it will be, they just need total upheaval. How do they do that? With perfect software and the perfect content deals. Just like they did with music in 2003.


     


    "People who write software should want to make their own hardware." Of course. The Apple TV is that hardware, not some dumb panel.

  • Reply 117 of 141
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?

    SJ and Jony Ives have always stayed steadfast to their common philosophy, that it's more important what you leave out and throw away in a product. What if the working components were really in a slide in break out box? Apple does have a patent for this already, and it was thought that they would do this eventually with sliding in iPhones, or when i saw it it, the then rumoured iPad.

    Or what if all of the controls are really just an App that truly interfaces with the iPanel?

    Where's Dick and Soli, the other 'ol dudes' that still kknow how to "Think Different"? :}
  • Reply 118 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    nht wrote: »
    I'm going to hazard that these high end TVs are far less than 1% of the market.  Likewise with all the videophile HDTVs.

    The iPhone was and is a mainstream device.  The high end of mainstream but mainstream none the less.  They aren't selling Vertu like phones.


    The Mac is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling supercomputers or embedded computers for missiles.
     
    The Airport is a mainstream device.  They aren't selling long haul DWDM gear.
     
    You like telling folks they don't know what Apple is about but you write complete nonsense like this.

    Yet you haven't explained how there's any difference.

    The phone was a mainstream device. When Apple started, they set out to capture the top 1% of the market - and they did so.

    The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.

    So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?

    Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.

    What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?

    That's been around for quite a while. It's still possible to buy a monitor and use it as your TV set. In fact, at least one of our sets is actually a monitor rather than a TV. I don't see anything particularly novel about Apple doing that.
  • Reply 119 of 141
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    What if, this new product really was, just a dumb screen, an iDisplay?
    SJ and Jony Ives have always stayed steadfast to their common philosophy, that it's more important what you leave out and throw away in a product. What if the working components were really in a slide in break out box? Apple does have a patent for this already, and it was thought that they would do this eventually with sliding in iPhones, or when i saw it it, the then rumoured iPad.
    Or what if all of the controls are really just an App that truly interfaces with the iPanel?
    Where's Dick and Soli, the other 'ol dudes' that still kknow how to "Think Different"? :}
    I certainly don't see it and have asked for years, on this forum, how this could actually work as a business model. The only poster I recall thinking different has been Ireland that literally thinks it will come to pass without a single port on the device, only a plug for power. I simply can't see how that will work on any level.

    The rumour of this TV has gotten so big that historically it does mean there is an Apple HDTV in the works and gearing up to be sold but even when taking a position of it happening and then trying to shoehorn it into a model I still can't find a solution that is remotely viable. There stores don't seem capable of storing and selling the HW. There seems to be no reason outside of reducing one remote (which you never have to use outside of the initial setup) and an integrated FaceTime camera that make this better than what an Apple TV can offer right now.

    I want the TV to just be a dumb monitor of which I can choose any number of sizes. And I want the Apple TV box to be between the display and several boxes (like cable/sat, Ti-Vo, and Blu-ray) that plug into the Apple TV box. This way the Apple TV UI will always be an overlay to what you are watching so you can get updates and notifications and you'll never have to switch inputs to see the Apple TV data.

    That, however, is my secondary option as I'd ideally like to have the Apple TV UI on the cable/sat box itself, but I know first hand and know of too many issues with trying to get them to offer that box. Can Apple make a box that will cover all US cable and sat company needs? Are cable cards good enough now to be a good option for Apple?

    jragosta wrote: »
    The computer is a mainstream device. Apple set out to capture the top couple percent of the market - and they did so. Apple has something like 90% of all computers over $1,000.
    I believe that was 92% and that was many years ago. Unfortunately there is a more current stat but I have to assume it will be even higher now. There was also a chart that Apple take 1/3 of all profit from the PC business worldwide. I also assume that has grown, too.
    So why is it any different to look at TV as a mainstream device and set out to capture only the top few percent of the market?
    Answer? It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
    From Apple's perspective it isn't the same thing. They've entered markets as legs for their stools where there have been massive profits to be made. They've been alright with low volume sales so long as they were selling the best product. Does that work the same way in the HDTV business? Do the companies selling the best product make a great profit on TVs?

    If Apple does enter this market I think it's clear that they think they can have great margins and make a billions doing it, but from our PoV we need to determine if they will. Are there companies that sell the displays to others for TVs that actually make a good profit or is the profit held by those that make the displays?

    Let's assume for a minute this is going to happen in 2012 or 2013. How will this be achievable? What is Apple's angle here? What will they offer that others have not? On Friday I did a lot of driving; so much so that I was able to listen to all of the audio from Steve Jobs at All Things D. What he stated over-and-over again was that it's all about the software. So where is the software that will make someone ditch a $99 box for a $2000 TV? Where is the software that will make someone put a 55" (what I read will be the bare minimum size) in their den or bedroom where it's too large or in some other room where it simply doesn't fit right? Remember that TVs, among all other electronics today are oft purchased because of the room space they will occupy.

    PS: I'm also still waiting on a viable answer to what nut Apple/Jobs could have cracked. Personally I think it has to do with getting around the content companies not the obvious and simple solution of sticking an Apple TV into an HDTV.
  • Reply 120 of 141
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    From Apple's perspective it isn't the same thing. They've entered markets as legs for their stools where there have been massive profits to be made. They've been alright with low volume sales so long as they were selling the best product. Does that work the same way in the HDTV business? Do the companies selling the best product make a great profit on TVs?

    From Apple's perspective, it's exactly the same thing.

    A decade ago, the MP3 player market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPod - which did very well.

    Five years ago, the mobile phone market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPhone - which did very well.

    A few years ago, the PC tablet market was a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. Apple introduced the iPad - which did very well.

    Today, the TV market is a mess. Zillions of suppliers of mostly junk, much of it at dirt cheap prices. There was no real market leader and no real differentiation between the products. The market was driven mostly by price and there was no one offering a premium product. The market dynamics are not that different from what Apple has been doing for the past decade.

    Why is everyone saying that the TV market is so unrelated to anything Apple has done? It's not. (And the argument that it's more expensive doesn't wash, either. Apple sells plenty of computers in the $2 K range. Even the iPhone at $650-850 and the iPad which is pushing $1 K at the high end are in the same ballpark when you consider that most people replace their phones every couple of years but keep TVs much longer.

    Not that I'm not saying that it's going to happen. I don't have any idea what Apple might have in their labs or what price point they would be able to hit while maintaining profit margins. But to immediately discard the idea because it's so 'different' is just wrong.
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If Apple does enter this market I think it's clear that they think they can have great margins and make a billions doing it, but from our PoV we need to determine if they will. Are there companies that sell the displays to others for TVs that actually make a good profit or is the profit held by those that make the displays?
    Let's assume for a minute this is going to happen in 2012 or 2013. How will this be achievable? What is Apple's angle here? What will they offer that others have not? On Friday I did a lot of driving; so much so that I was able to listen to all of the audio from Steve Jobs at All Things D. What he stated over-and-over again was that it's all about the software. So where is the software that will make someone ditch a $99 box for a $2000 TV? Where is the software that will make someone put a 55" (what I read will be the bare minimum size) in their den or bedroom where it's too large or in some other room where it simply doesn't fit right? Remember that TVs, among all other electronics today are oft purchased because of the room space they will occupy.
    PS: I'm also still waiting on a viable answer to what nut Apple/Jobs could have cracked. Personally I think it has to do with getting around the content companies not the obvious and simple solution of sticking an Apple TV into an HDTV.

    I don't have any idea - which is why I can't predict what Apple will do. But it's not completely implausible.

    If I had to guess, I would venture that the 'nut' Jobs claims to have cracked has to do with ease of use, simplicity, and integration. For a pretty substantial portion of the population, current TVs are far too complicated. My mother wouldn't even have a DVD player in her house until one of the kids programmed a remote so that she could do both the TV and the DVD player from a single remote. I have to laugh every time my ex tried to watch a movie. She couldn't figure out how to change from one device to the other - and I even programmed a Harmony remote to automate the process. The current TV system is inordinately complex and difficult compared to a Jobsian ideal. Even the idea of using the Apple TV in combination with a conventional TV set is more complicated than if everything is included in a single device.

    Only time will tell.
Sign In or Register to comment.