Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box

2456710

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 192


    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

    And a box in the 'middle' will confuse people.


     


    Eh? Stupid panel. Plug it in. Only control that. Nothing else. TV is a screen. Period. Everything's on the box. Pure profit, easy upgrades, sell more than one per household.






    will be 'cable aware' and will Siri enable your cable/OTA watching experience.



     


    Apple's in the revolution game.

  • Reply 22 of 192
    In my view, the main point of a "whole" TV would be to be able to offer a simple user interface with a small and simple remote instead of the multiple remotes and configurations that people are still tolerating.

    I imagine turning on said TV and being presented with an interface something like the current AppleTV box provides. That would be the "main" interface as opposed to the current tv interfaces where you start with the tv remote, chose your input channel, switch to respective remote and continue. Apple's content would now be at the forefront instead of behind the usual TV functions.

    Ideally Apple would provide within that new interface a bunch of content but they don't need to start with a full package. Within that new slick interface and simple remote they can have submenu's that connect you to your regular set-top box or whatever else. Again, the difference is those things are in the backseat and with time they will just fade away.

    Lastly, I don't see why Siri would be so important in all of this.

  • Reply 23 of 192
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'd much rather be able to have all the TVs in the house connected to boxes I bought from Apple without having to replace any TVs, than have to buy a new TV for each room just to get a useful UI, services, and content. I'm simply not going to put a large HDTV in the guest bedroom but I'd be fine if I could spend a couple hundred on a box for it.
    Apple would never be stupid enough to go down the route of forcing people to buy a television in order to get their solution. But I do see them offering two solutions. One would be something like the current ATV, the other would be a fully integrated television set. Whatever they do I don't see them coming out with anything until they can really do something different.
  • Reply 24 of 192
    I expect that Apple will to release a TV and update the set top box. Similar to the way you can buy an iMac or go with the Mac mini and your own display.

    I think the game changer will be updating the Apple TV OS to be more like iOS and incorporate third-party apps. Of course they need more content, but third-pary apps could lead to using apps as channels.
  • Reply 25 of 192


    Originally Posted by Dr. Phil View Post

    I expect that Apple will to release a TV and update the set top box.




    Please tell me why I would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.

  • Reply 26 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    And a box in the 'middle' will confuse people.

    How have people used digiboxes since the 1980s if they are too confusing to use?
  • Reply 27 of 192

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post



    I'll bet Apple had the TV designed already. Just waiting for the technology to be ready and for the media contracts to fall into place.


    the technology is ready  (Siri plus AppleTV guts stuck inside TV, audio out to your HT system)... the issue is the contracts, and with whom.


     


    Look at iTunes and iPhone.  The former it went to the equivalent of the networks (labels), not the cable companies (stores).  However, the Cable Companies are the Internet in most houses, like wireless carriers delivered phone service  However, the difference is that there was competition in phone carriers, where as Cable companies have local monopolies.   


     


    Netflix's win of Disney (I can't imagine Apple NOT in that Bid) Content is a big big big chink in the armor of the middle tier cable networks.  And Disney may be 'testing' it's capabilities (remember Disney  Huger than Huge in Content. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney ), and Mrs Jobs is 'the' significant shareholder.   If it works (Disney makes money, Netflix makes money), then Disney can start disintermediating all the Cable Cos (Remember when ESPN wanted to raise it's price on ComCast?  Think about ESPN properties being a $10/month subscription on iTunes 'Live').... Until then... Disney makes it's money just like the cable companies do... charges the distributors as if EVERYONE is watching their content.  Why would they want to give that up?  Only if they can make more money.

  • Reply 28 of 192


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    How have people used digiboxes since the 1980s if they are too confusing to use?


     


    "No one was ever able to program their VCR. Tens of millions of boxes flashing '12:00' from creation to destruction. Therefore, a box in between is too confusing."


     


    Never mind that the same tens of millions now successfully use telecom-provided DVRs whose interfaces are both slow and hideous as sin…

  • Reply 29 of 192
    There is no reason Apple cannot do both. A great TV and linking boxes seems logical to me, I would by the TV and four boxes.
  • Reply 30 of 192
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    I'm not sure there is money to be made building a tv screen when the prices for all but the super high end have been falling along with profit margins. I don't think Siri would work either since it barely works on an iPhone. I think the key is the delivery of content more the way iTunes pretty much eliminated the CD and stores that sold them. Apple may be making a deal with networks to distribute show and other content in favor of an a la carte style contract replacing the tiered system cable companies use now. I watch content on about 6 networks yet there are hundreds in my plan that I must pay for yet never use. Unfortunately we may still need multiple components for BD, DVD players going through a home theatre system for some time to come.
  • Reply 31 of 192
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Everyone's whining about hardware, no one's talking about content. 




    It's just the same old frigging TV box unless there's a service designed specifically for it.



     


    Exactly.  You can't disrupt the TV industry with updated hardware.


    Just ask Sony.

  • Reply 32 of 192
    Pros: Apple's TV would be simpler than most set-top boxes and their ridiculously busy remotes.

    Cons: You'll want to buy a new TV very year, once the upgrade treadmill begins.
  • Reply 33 of 192
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Please tell me why I would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.



    Then you would be stupid, I guess - but if you are looking for a new set and you have a choice between an Apple set without the box... The set will no doubt offer premium features ... you know, added value, you might go for the Apple set. It will undoubtedly look awesome, though some of the Samsungs look awesome, too.


     


    $2,000.- ? Did Tim tell you or is this pure speculation? 


     


    I am still waiting for the - 'it'll just be a giant iPod' criticism. 

  • Reply 34 of 192
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post



    Expect full fledged TV with Loewe designs...

    http://www.loewe.tv/int

    Time will tell.


     


    That would be a complete fail IMO.  


     


    Loewe TV sets are a classic example of what people *think* Apple design is all about while actually being almost the *opposite* of what Apple design is really all about.  Aside from the smooth lines and sexy materials there is absolutely nothing a Loewe TV does or is that is any different from any other TV.  An Apple branded TV would instead (hopefully) re-define the category like all their other products.  Despite the smooth looks of their products, Apple is about design, not just sexy materials and cool looking photography.  


     


    At the very least, I would hope that Apple goes beyond this crappy 1980's idea that to get decent sound quality you have to have a separate amplifier, 5 speakers cluttering up your living room and all the associated tangle of wires leading from each to each.  Any audio engineer could tell you that it's not true at all that this kind of gear is necessary to get good quality sound.  They do it that way because it means you have to buy more crap.  It's fins on Cadillacs all over again.


     


    If they don't do at least that, then (like the Loewe products) you can bet it's just going to be "just another TV" with basically zero innovation.  All this stuff about Siri being the main innovation, or some kind of f*cked up idea that we will be using our iPads as the remote and that will be the main innovation is just nonsense.  That's not innovation at all, that's just replacing a working product with a half-baked, not-quite-functional one.  


     


    IMO the simplest answer to the "problem" of bringing TV into the modern era was thought of many years ago although it was so far ahead of it's time it never really caught on.  Podcasts.  

  • Reply 35 of 192

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    How have people used digiboxes since the 1980s if they are too confusing to use?


    What percentage of the current 6.1Billion people on earth use digiboxes, how many know how to DVR with them, do   I'm not saying it's hard, I'm saying most people haven't invested in the tech, or they hate the 2 remote problem (or programming the universal remote).  It's not confusion, it's 'how much easier must it be for me to pay Apple to do it for me?' (See Tablet computing.)


     


    I'm just saying Apple is trying to get out of the 'device in the middle.'   Why iCloud vs a smart TimeCapsule that serves your files all over the internet... because that's complex and hard.   Apple wants no more than 3 devices between you and your content:  The Cloud... your iOS device, and either your computer or your AppleTV.  All tactile, and quantifiable (well, the cloud may not be... but that's the source, and it's ITMS). The DigiBox (and I really wanted Apple to build a component home server of mac Mini's that did file service, backup, compute service, and to your point, content caching and management), just doesn't fit their model.

  • Reply 36 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Never mind that the same tens of millions now successfully use telecom-provided DVRs whose interfaces are both slow and hideous as sin…

    This is where I think Apple has the best chance of making an impact. If they can get some major telecoms to agree to rent their Apple made digiboxes they can offer a much better solution than Motorola, Scientific Atlantic, TiVo, or any other company can offer. They can get a high price for their box (cable companies pay a lot for them) and yet it will be an attractive option that customers can rent from their cable company.

    This isn't a subsidy, but it's not too far off from the model the iPhone uses in the US; a model that hides the actual price of the product in with the services; a model that has made the iPhone the most profitable product Apple sells and the most successful CE in the world in record time.

    That said, this is not an easy nut to crack because there is no one-size-fits-alk digibox model in the US. Even Steve Jobs has stated this as an issue to Mossberg several years ago. However, this issue does not vanish if they simply make their own TV unless they want to also eschew all connectivity with cable television providers... which I just don't see happening.
  • Reply 37 of 192
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    Here are the three choices Apple can make. They can do any one or combination.

    1. Set top box a la the existing Apple TV, but with more capabilities. Maybe two different models. Adding DVR capabilities, etc. They may just keep the existing architecture with slight modifications for a specific market.

    2. Come out with a OEM hardware/software product that can be implemented in a variety of TV makers product so the actual product is a co-branded line of "Apple TVs" that they can sign just about anyone (except Samsung, of course). There are brands like Loewe, B&O, Sharp, Sony, LG, Elite, etc., etc. that could potentially market TVs with an Apple solution built inside.

    3. Design and brand their own TV with the whatever software/hardware solution which adds functionality like WiFi, Video Conferencing, DVR, browsing, add apps, games, whatever additional functionality they see fit. The guts could be potentially similar to an iPad on some steroids since it might have more SSD storage or maybe something like a Fusion drive to handle large amounts of video content that has fast access, God knows what else.

    Tivo charges a fair amount of money for their top end DVRs and Apple could probably do the same thing with other functionality cheaper and with a better GUI.
  • Reply 38 of 192

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Please tell me why I would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.



    He told you why - because they will also offer a box.


     


    If apple offered a high-quality TV with built in AppleTV functionality I would rather buy that than a new Samsung + Apple TV. However, I don't need a new tv so I'll buy the box. But people who DO need a new tv, could buy Apple's. (and when I replace my TV in 5 years or buy a 2nd one when I finish the basement, etc. I could buy Apples TV instead of another Samsung+ATV combo)


     


    Not that I'm thinking apple is or should build a tv set, but the logic behind does make perfect sense.

  • Reply 39 of 192

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Please tell me why I would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.



    2 remotes.


     


    Apple is a one (zero) button shop.   For those people (and you may not be one of them), it it requires two remotes (my former wife was one of them), she would get frustrated.  Yes, College educated, 3 college educated children, but I had buy her 'content on demand), because it wasn't an 'up channel/down channel/volume' operation on the STB.


     


    And I don't think an Apple TV will be $2000 dollars.  My guess is $499/699/999  (37 45 50 inch diags).   Remember the Apple TV will be 


    TV glass


    Cable in


    Audio Out (SPDIF only)


    Ethernet/Wireless


    AppleTV guts with additional smarts to handle OTA and Cable Signals


    USB (for diagnostics)


    Power Cord


    Apple Remote.


    Less ports than any $300 TV (no PC in, no COMP in, no SVid, No VGA, no VGA no 4 HDMIs in).  (VCR/DVD inputs  HA!  This is Apple!!!!)


     


    Plug it in. Plug in Cable and Ethernet (or assume 802.11n wireless),  Press Menu on the Remote.  Starts. displays last content.  if in TV mode, left/right are channels, up down volume.  Play/Pause to... Play or Pause (or select if in a menu) . Press Menu again to select a different mode.


     


    That's it.

  • Reply 40 of 192

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    That would be a complete fail IMO.  


     


    Loewe TV sets are a classic example of what people *think* Apple design is all about while actually being almost the *opposite* of what Apple design is really all about.  Aside from the smooth lines and sexy materials there is absolutely nothing a Loewe TV does or is that is any different from any other TV.  An Apple branded TV would instead (hopefully) re-define the category like all their other products.  Despite the smooth looks of their products, Apple is about design, not just sexy materials and cool looking photography.  


     


    At the very least, I would hope that Apple goes beyond this crappy 1980's idea that to get decent sound quality you have to have a separate amplifier, 5 speakers cluttering up your living room and all the associated tangle of wires leading from each to each.  Any audio engineer could tell you that it's not true at all that this kind of gear is necessary to get good quality sound.  They do it that way because it means you have to buy more crap.  It's fins on Cadillacs all over again.


     


    If they don't do at least that, then (like the Loewe products) you can bet it's just going to be "just another TV" with basically zero innovation.  All this stuff about Siri being the main innovation, or some kind of f*cked up idea that we will be using our iPads as the remote and that will be the main innovation is just nonsense.  That's not innovation at all, that's just replacing a working product with a half-baked, not-quite-functional one.  


     


    IMO the simplest answer to the "problem" of bringing TV into the modern era was thought of many years ago although it was so far ahead of it's time it never really caught on.  Podcasts.  



    Obviously they would have to use iOS software on the Apple version of the TV but the but the physical Loewe designs are nice.   Loewe designs are right in line with existing Apple product designs.  The Loewe audio designs don't look shabby  either.


     


    http://www.loewe.tv/int  




     


     



     


     


    Time will tell.

Sign In or Register to comment.