In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.
How's Apple going to make money on TVs then? 2 yrs is their target refresh cycle on current devices. They're all about maximizing profits on hardware. That's why I believe that they won't make a TV set where refresh cycles are 6-10 yrs. How much money would Apple have made if most people still had the original iPhone and hadn't upgraded 3-4 times since?
Two years, two months ago, the first-gen Apple TV was the most modern device available. Now it can't have anywhere near the newest software.
People keep their TVs for 5-10 years. This can't fly in this industry. They'd be FAR more likely to spend $99 every two years to get the newest software and features than they would $2,500.
How's Apple going to make money on TVs then? 2 yrs is their target refresh cycle on current devices. They're all about maximizing profits on hardware. That's why I believe that they won't make a TV set where refresh cycles are 6-10 yrs. How much money would Apple have made if most people still had the original iPhone and hadn't upgraded 3-4 times since?
I don't think an Apple Television is going to fly if the "smart" features are obsoleted and support deprecated in three years like the original AppleTV. I think there's an open question whether it really needs to be built into the TV when most, if not all such features can be supported by an external box. It's easy to justify $100 every other year, replacing a $2000 TV in three years isn't going to fly. As it is, I'm not even sure I'm in any mood to replace my existing AppleTV, the UI is a little tedious.
Two years, two months ago, the first-gen Apple TV was the most modern device available. Now it can't have anywhere near the newest software.
People keep their TVs for 5-10 years. This can't fly in this industry. They'd be FAR more likely to spend $99 every two years to get the newest software and features than they would $2,500.
YOU'RE crazy.
Lets say they make 30% on the Apple TV, that's 30 bucks. And you buy a new one every 2 years. Say you keep your iTV for 6 years, that would mean Apple would need to make over 90 bucks from iTV for it to work out more profitable than Apple TV. Hmmm...
And on top of that, they can make iTV a more awesome product that doesn't need to be crippled every two years to force people to upgrade. So, they get AIO simplicity, they get an awesome Apple built TV, and they get a TV that stays up to date, via free software updates and a nifty proc. And people recommend iTV based on it as a product. Nice!
How's Apple going to make money on TVs then? 2 yrs is their target refresh cycle on current devices. They're all about maximizing profits on hardware. That's why I believe that they won't make a TV set where refresh cycles are 6-10 yrs. How much money would Apple have made if most people still had the original iPhone and hadn't upgraded 3-4 times since?
Like I say, they can make as much profit on 1 iTV than 3 Apple TVs. So no matter if you upgrade the box every 2 years, or the TV every 6, Apple wins. And they win more if the sell you the TV, because the experience for the user becomes more elegant and seamless, which equates to a better product and happier customers, and they get complete control over your TV experience, and I reckon they get even more profit than 3 Apple TV boxes. Plus the iTV App Store ecosystem.
Huh? What does beefier have anything to do with anything?
He's saying it'd have a better processor or more RAM or something. I don't see how that prevents Apple from doing their standard "three years of software upgrades per device".
He's saying it'd have a better processor or more RAM or something. I don't see how that prevents Apple from doing their standard "three years of software upgrades per device".
Fair enough. You don't see it. Regardless, all this talk is nonsense, and going nowhere. I have my views, you have users, they seem to be polar opposite. We'll agree to disagree.
I believe Apple will make a TV, and I'm hoping a TV subscription deal. It's wait and see time.
I believe Apple will make a TV, and I'm hoping a TV subscription deal. It's wait and see time.
I believe it too, but it'll be a total frigging crock. The cable/satellite telecoms won't relent, it'll have a smaller content library than the Apple TV now, and it'll be years getting off the ground.
Meanwhile, Google et. al. will bend over backward (and, er, forward) to be subservient to the telecoms and will make boxes with a UI stolen from Apple and content direct-fed from the telecoms the way they want it.
You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.
Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.
… One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.
I've decided to name his style of logic a "Tolkien complex", speaking of which, people should spend more time reading.
Ireland's. He was inherently opposed to a second device. I've always said it depends. If the repurchasing cycle for the Apple hardware is every couple years, it's best as an external box like we have today. I also doubt they'd grab similar margins with a television. Most companies that make them are leveraging their own facilities. Even then the margins aren't great.
Ireland's. He was inherently opposed to a second device. I've always said it depends. If the repurchasing cycle for the Apple hardware is every couple years, it's best as an external box like we have today. I also doubt they'd grab similar margins with a television. Most companies that make them are leveraging their own facilities. Even then the margins aren't great.
I would prefer an actual TV from Apple (and I own an ATV). We'll see what happens.
I would prefer an actual TV from Apple (and I own an ATV). We'll see what happens.
Yes... but I still like calling it a Tolkien complex, even if it's just for my own amusement. The ideal thing would be to simplify things like wall mounted implementations. If you've already dedicated housing furniture to the television, it wouldn't make much difference. Apple did some more customized display work with the new imacs. If they improve upon that, it could show up within a television. I just don't see it as a great idea unless they can differentiate it from what they already offer. Wall Street likes the idea because it represents a potential for growth, and it distributes profits across more products. Right now they're bound to iphone sales for the majority of their operating income. Its volume and margins exceed everything else, including the ipad. Launching products in different markets simply helps shield them somewhat from downturns, as long as they're able to move enough units.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.
New TV every 2 years? You're crazy.
How's Apple going to make money on TVs then? 2 yrs is their target refresh cycle on current devices. They're all about maximizing profits on hardware. That's why I believe that they won't make a TV set where refresh cycles are 6-10 yrs. How much money would Apple have made if most people still had the original iPhone and hadn't upgraded 3-4 times since?
Originally Posted by Ireland
New TV every 2 years? You're crazy.
Two years, two months ago, the first-gen Apple TV was the most modern device available. Now it can't have anywhere near the newest software.
People keep their TVs for 5-10 years. This can't fly in this industry. They'd be FAR more likely to spend $99 every two years to get the newest software and features than they would $2,500.
YOU'RE crazy.
I don't think an Apple Television is going to fly if the "smart" features are obsoleted and support deprecated in three years like the original AppleTV. I think there's an open question whether it really needs to be built into the TV when most, if not all such features can be supported by an external box. It's easy to justify $100 every other year, replacing a $2000 TV in three years isn't going to fly. As it is, I'm not even sure I'm in any mood to replace my existing AppleTV, the UI is a little tedious.
Lets say they make 30% on the Apple TV, that's 30 bucks. And you buy a new one every 2 years. Say you keep your iTV for 6 years, that would mean Apple would need to make over 90 bucks from iTV for it to work out more profitable than Apple TV. Hmmm...
And on top of that, they can make iTV a more awesome product that doesn't need to be crippled every two years to force people to upgrade. So, they get AIO simplicity, they get an awesome Apple built TV, and they get a TV that stays up to date, via free software updates and a nifty proc. And people recommend iTV based on it as a product. Nice!
You're crazy.
Like I say, they can make as much profit on 1 iTV than 3 Apple TVs. So no matter if you upgrade the box every 2 years, or the TV every 6, Apple wins. And they win more if the sell you the TV, because the experience for the user becomes more elegant and seamless, which equates to a better product and happier customers, and they get complete control over your TV experience, and I reckon they get even more profit than 3 Apple TV boxes. Plus the iTV App Store ecosystem.
Originally Posted by Ireland
And on top of that, they can make iTV a more awesome product that doesn't need to be crippled every two years to force people to upgrade.
…What?
…they get a TV that stays up to date, via free software updates and a nifty proc.
And what makes you think this would happen?
Because the TV would cost more, therefore can be beefier than a little cheap-o box.
Huh? What does beefier have anything to do with anything?
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Huh? What does beefier have anything to do with anything?
He's saying it'd have a better processor or more RAM or something. I don't see how that prevents Apple from doing their standard "three years of software upgrades per device".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
He's saying it'd have a better processor or more RAM or something. I don't see how that prevents Apple from doing their standard "three years of software upgrades per device".
Fair enough. You don't see it. Regardless, all this talk is nonsense, and going nowhere. I have my views, you have users, they seem to be polar opposite. We'll agree to disagree.
I believe Apple will make a TV, and I'm hoping a TV subscription deal. It's wait and see time.
Originally Posted by Ireland
I believe Apple will make a TV, and I'm hoping a TV subscription deal. It's wait and see time.
I believe it too, but it'll be a total frigging crock. The cable/satellite telecoms won't relent, it'll have a smaller content library than the Apple TV now, and it'll be years getting off the ground.
Meanwhile, Google et. al. will bend over backward (and, er, forward) to be subservient to the telecoms and will make boxes with a UI stolen from Apple and content direct-fed from the telecoms the way they want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.
Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.
… One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.
I've decided to name his style of logic a "Tolkien complex", speaking of which, people should spend more time reading.
Originally Posted by hmm
I've decided to name his style of logic a "Tolkien complex", speaking of which, people should spend more time reading.
Whose, mine or Ireland's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Whose, mine or Ireland's?
Ireland's. He was inherently opposed to a second device. I've always said it depends. If the repurchasing cycle for the Apple hardware is every couple years, it's best as an external box like we have today. I also doubt they'd grab similar margins with a television. Most companies that make them are leveraging their own facilities. Even then the margins aren't great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Ireland's. He was inherently opposed to a second device. I've always said it depends. If the repurchasing cycle for the Apple hardware is every couple years, it's best as an external box like we have today. I also doubt they'd grab similar margins with a television. Most companies that make them are leveraging their own facilities. Even then the margins aren't great.
I would prefer an actual TV from Apple (and I own an ATV). We'll see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I would prefer an actual TV from Apple (and I own an ATV). We'll see what happens.
Yes... but I still like calling it a Tolkien complex, even if it's just for my own amusement. The ideal thing would be to simplify things like wall mounted implementations. If you've already dedicated housing furniture to the television, it wouldn't make much difference. Apple did some more customized display work with the new imacs. If they improve upon that, it could show up within a television. I just don't see it as a great idea unless they can differentiate it from what they already offer. Wall Street likes the idea because it represents a potential for growth, and it distributes profits across more products. Right now they're bound to iphone sales for the majority of their operating income. Its volume and margins exceed everything else, including the ipad. Launching products in different markets simply helps shield them somewhat from downturns, as long as they're able to move enough units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Yes... but I still like calling it a Tolkien complex, even if it's just for my own amusement.
Hmm, OK.
Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?
I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one piece of plastic.