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.
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.
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.
TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less. For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years. It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.
What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES. They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.
He told you why - because they will also offer a box.
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE 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.
Apparently that was unclear.
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
2 remotes.
One remote.
And I don't think an Apple TV will be $2000 dollars. My guess is $499/699/999 (37 45 50 inch diags).
A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. ????
All this talk about margins....couldn't the see thing be said about other products, like computers? Yet Apple is #1 in the US in both desktop and laptop sales and making decent margins on their products. I see Apple offering a TV for those who are in the market for it, and some sort of $100-$200 box for people who don't need a new TV.
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.
TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less. For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years. It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.
I would love to meet these people that would toss their perfectly working HD TV every 3 years....(no one)
Quote:
What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES. They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.
You think people really care about any of that? New LED TVs are already low power, excellent color and paper thin. The world isn't moving beyond 1080p anytime soon. Most HD broadcasts are still 720p only. It'll be a long time before we get to 4k, not to mention one movie is north of about 500GB in size. Uncompressed is about 3TB.What is Apple going to do? Stream that?! Sure you may see proof of concept, but...mainstream? No.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
There is nothing bad about it. It makes perfect logical sense. I just don't think Apple wants you to be looking at someone else's kit. That is why they make the iMac. They also make the Mini - and there it is - the aTV and the Apple Television. The latter will have all the bells and whistles. Also, as I have said repeatedly, entering the living room with a bang is Apple's style and noting signals that better than the very centrepiece most people spend hours looking at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
Apple will have to allow you to connect a cable-box but a prerequisite of the Apple Television launch is a package that can do without. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the main networks will work in tandem with Apple on launch to bring their content directly through the new device (I imagine this will be through IP). Then one by one the others will follow. (It will be limited at first and Apple will be slated for it). The other USP(s) will be how Apple integrates the whole experience with iCoud etc.
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE 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.
Apparently that was unclear.
One remote.
A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. ????
I transposed the one/two
And the day before the iPad was announced, the same would have been said: $499 for a tablet computer? From APPLE?
Note a 37" TV set now is less that $400. Assuming the competitors are making 20% margin without Apple's SupplyChain tightness, $499 would likely be 30-40% profit margin. It's a reasonable number.
I love the interface for Netflix, both the website as well as the PS3 version. It is easy to navigate and also browse or watch content. But it would be nice to also have all the content of Hulu Plus, Crackle, Vudu, Amazon, and even iTunes all available from one place. If Apple could buy Netflix and Crackle then partner with Hulu as well to offer their content for an additional monthly fee as an option or premium package then expand their iTunes content to include more recent TV shows and movies for pay per view and match the content that Amazon and Vudu offer that would be very attractive. Right now the iTunes content is rather sparse and expensive.
You would be able to use the Apple TV interface to browse and watch all the content from Netflix, Hulu, and a much larger iTunes library from one place . I think they would have a real winner that could replace cable or satellite set top boxes. Couple that with a digital antenna for free local OTA content especially for local news. The question is would Apple ever want to go into the monthly all you can watch model like Netflix and if they did would they want to keep the monthly price at only $16 a month which is what Netflix and Hulu currently charge for both services. It would also depend if Hulu would allow that level of integration but if they are making the same amount of money I doubt they would object too strongly. But Hulu does have the inclusion of commercials which might be a problem for Apple. But iTunes offers an alternative to watch commercial free but $2.99 per episode is ridiculously high for a 21 minute sit-com when Amazon offers the same shows for $1.99.
I am sure Apple could make a great viewing experience and would love to offer all the TV shows and movies but with the shark infested waters of dealing with the greedy content distributors reluctant to give any ground or let Apple gain a foothold in the living room they have a tough road ahead.
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.
1. There are currently about 1.5 BILLION TV sets worldwide. China has over 400 Mil, US has about 200 Mil, etc. etc.
2. There are about 237 to 250 Million TVs (all types) sold each year.
3. Apple typically goes after the sweetspot, which for TVs would be between 40 and 65 (maybe 70 inch). The sweetspot has been steadily going from up about 5 inches per year or two, so the sweetspot is around 50 or 55 inch.
Apple could either replace these cable boxes, or just have the TV include DVR, internet access, etc. and just have it connect to the cable/satellite box and just control the thing through an iDevice and route audio through 802.11 ac, which is going to start becoming popular once they get the 802.11ac spec ironed out next year.
The one big problem I failed to mention in my last post is dealing with the ISP's. Most now no longer offer unlimited internet and have data limits of around 200 or 250GB a month. A house with 3 or 4 TV's watching content at the same time not only would eat through a lot of data quickly but you would also need a really fast connection not to cause buffering problems if 4 people are all watching different TVs at the same time. You might be fine with Fiber but slower cable might be problematic streaming to several TVs at once. How could Apple solve that problem short of starting their own fiber ISP which is extremely doubtful. You know the cable companies would give a lot of push back if they start losing cable TV customers and are relegated to just dumb pipes for far less revenue. Apple might be forced to partner with them to avoid this problem.
I think TV sales have been falling because Apple, without doing anything, is building up a HUGE pent up demand as this topic is discussed. I'm actually holding off a purchase of a new TV because of this. Look at how many owners of iPads, iPhones would drop money on a really nice Apple HDTV within 6 months? A TON, and I think everyone knows it and is just trying to figure out when the button is going get pressed.
People with Macs, iPhones, iPads would line up for weeks to get their hands on one and they could EASILY sell them if they had the right set of features, price, etc.
Some houses have 4 and 5 TVs. I think the average household has 2.8 TVs for homes that have TVs.
all of this is logical progression, it's just a matter of what features, what cost, and when.
Home theater systems are getting AirPlay implemented, so they would be ready for accepting the Audio signal from a TV set.
Full Apple TV Will not have the same form factor current tv's have.
IT Will be totally different.
IT Will be Like today s box but with a high quality beamer for a relatively low price and a screen which You can fold, put upright or hang on the ceiling.
The problem with the current generation of tv's is that they're Huge, not scalable, immobile and worst of All they look Like ugly depressing black rectangles when turned off.
Apple could either replace these cable boxes, or just have the TV include DVR, internet access, etc. and just have it connect to the cable/satellite box and just control the thing through an iDevice and route audio through 802.11 ac, which is going to start becoming popular once they get the 802.11ac spec ironed out next year.
They could offer both an HDTV and digibox solution. The HDTV could be in the sweet spot you mention with FaceTime, a high quality panel and perhaps some other features (like Siri) but the digibox solution could be something to gain wide adoption by havng those with less disposable income, those who are not ready replace their HEC HDTV at this point in time, and those with plenty of smaller TVs to get access to their UI and UX.
I don't expect 802.111ac to necessarily wait for a fully complete spec. They haven't waited that long in the past (although 802.11n was so problematic that there were extenuating circumstances). I do think that no Apple product will get 802.11ac unless they update their routers to support it. If I were to guess I'd say that they updated Mac Pro and routers will get this update within the first 4 months of 2013.
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.
Actually this sounds exactly like something Apple would do.
This forces early adopters to buy an Apple TV Screen as their primarily TV, and then via firmware make the ATV boxes dependent on the server inside the TV Screen. It's only available in the 40"-60" range as its intended to be your primary TV. So Apple guarantees you're looking at an Apple logo so you don't forget exactly who solved the nightmare that is current TV.
People will buy an Apple TV for the same reason they buy an iPhone, iPod and iPad ... It looks great and works flawlessly, right out of the box. I don't know anybody who doesn't complain about their TV setup. Whether Apple manages a 100% revolutionary solution, or only an iCloud kind of incremental improvement over time situation, people are going to perceive it as a major step forward over anything anybody else has offered,
Eventually, once Apple has established itself as a TV maker in order to sustain itself, they will most likely bring the software solution to the box by itself in the same way they introduced the iPad mini and other lower cost products to the masses.
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
The point is that its not the people who have figured out the digibox that are Apple's customers... it's those who haven't bought box yet because it's too complicated, or didn't meet their needs.
Quote:
2) I'd say there are enough dissatisfied people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
Add that word, and I agree.
d
Quote:
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
Agreed. but mobility of display (I watch a show for 10 minute on my ipad on the way home on the bus, then switching to one TV in the living room for 20 minutes, while relaxing, then 30 minutes in the den, without losing context), is what I see Apple going to... your iDevice is your bookmark. I really do think the TV set is a shared device. All those TV sets in bedrooms, kitchens, offices... will be eliminated. But the 'navigation' will drive through the iDevice. Apple's Usage model.
Quote:
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
I'm not saying you replace every tv in the house... the AppleTV box still exists for those where you want to use a TV, but for the most part, most of those TVs are replace with the iPad.
Quote:
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors, expect Apple to not be able to connect to any content from cable/sat companies distributing channels, and C) expect this to fail miserably.
I disagree on A) Apple will sell 'the' TV set in the house of the future. 3 sizes (small/med/large all larger than their largest Cinema display), LED only. In the future there will be only 1 or 2 TV sets in a house, and one Big One for shared big experience viewing, and that's got a 10 year life span My futurist guess is that Synced HUDs will replace TVs (why do we both need to watch the same screen).
As for multiple version in multiple sizes, shapes, colors, price point: Case in point. iPhone.
See Netflix/Disney. Bypasses Cable/Satellite. This is happening. If Torrents are the same as Napster, Someone will realize that average consumer will pay $3 to watch a months worth of Scandal.
Again Case in Point: Are you using ATT email on your iPhone? Apple bypassed all those services from the Carriers.
C) I expect just like the wireless space, the cable space will start to charge a huge sum for bandwidth, and the cable channels will come for free. Satellites will become a huge CDN.
The set-top box idea is dead. Not going to happen.
They just fall right off of modern TVs.
This is also an issue for wall mounted TVs which are getting more popular. Where do people put the cable box for those installations? 'Set top' or below set are both problematic. Cable cards didn't really catch on but Apple's no visible wires design philosophy needs to be accounted for in a clean design.
If Apple does partner with cable companies in a cable/Internet hybrid box it will be accompanied with data plans and data caps.
I just hope they keep producing/supporting the current Apple TV for those who utilize them for home theater projection equipment. I haven't owned a television set in years, and I don't want a big black rectangle occupying space when not in use.
Comments
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors,
7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less. For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years. It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.
What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES. They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.
Originally Posted by joelsalt
He told you why - because they will also offer a box.
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE 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.
Apparently that was unclear.
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
2 remotes.
One remote.
And I don't think an Apple TV will be $2000 dollars. My guess is $499/699/999 (37 45 50 inch diags).
A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/7/3739546/google-motorola-cable-box-auction-wsj
Kind of ironic isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
TVs used to be replaced every 10 years or so, then the trend is going down to about every 7 years, and even less. For some reason, I think the upgrade path might end up being around 3 years. It's kind of silly, but that's what reality might end up being.
I would love to meet these people that would toss their perfectly working HD TV every 3 years....(no one)
Quote:
What the driving force is going to be is Sharp's new IGZO panels due out next year at CES. They can get higher resolution, better color accuracy, lower power, etc.
You think people really care about any of that? New LED TVs are already low power, excellent color and paper thin. The world isn't moving beyond 1080p anytime soon. Most HD broadcasts are still 720p only. It'll be a long time before we get to 4k, not to mention one movie is north of about 500GB in size. Uncompressed is about 3TB.What is Apple going to do? Stream that?! Sure you may see proof of concept, but...mainstream? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
There is nothing bad about it. It makes perfect logical sense. I just don't think Apple wants you to be looking at someone else's kit. That is why they make the iMac. They also make the Mini - and there it is - the aTV and the Apple Television. The latter will have all the bells and whistles. Also, as I have said repeatedly, entering the living room with a bang is Apple's style and noting signals that better than the very centrepiece most people spend hours looking at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors,
Apple will have to allow you to connect a cable-box but a prerequisite of the Apple Television launch is a package that can do without. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the main networks will work in tandem with Apple on launch to bring their content directly through the new device (I imagine this will be through IP). Then one by one the others will follow. (It will be limited at first and Apple will be slated for it). The other USP(s) will be how Apple integrates the whole experience with iCoud etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE 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.
Apparently that was unclear.
One remote.
A 37" television. For $499. From Apple. A 37" television. Same price as the iPad. From APPLE. ????
I transposed the one/two
And the day before the iPad was announced, the same would have been said: $499 for a tablet computer? From APPLE?
Note a 37" TV set now is less that $400. Assuming the competitors are making 20% margin without Apple's SupplyChain tightness, $499 would likely be 30-40% profit margin. It's a reasonable number.
but we are violently in agreement.
You would be able to use the Apple TV interface to browse and watch all the content from Netflix, Hulu, and a much larger iTunes library from one place . I think they would have a real winner that could replace cable or satellite set top boxes. Couple that with a digital antenna for free local OTA content especially for local news. The question is would Apple ever want to go into the monthly all you can watch model like Netflix and if they did would they want to keep the monthly price at only $16 a month which is what Netflix and Hulu currently charge for both services. It would also depend if Hulu would allow that level of integration but if they are making the same amount of money I doubt they would object too strongly. But Hulu does have the inclusion of commercials which might be a problem for Apple. But iTunes offers an alternative to watch commercial free but $2.99 per episode is ridiculously high for a 21 minute sit-com when Amazon offers the same shows for $1.99.
I am sure Apple could make a great viewing experience and would love to offer all the TV shows and movies but with the shark infested waters of dealing with the greedy content distributors reluctant to give any ground or let Apple gain a foothold in the living room they have a tough road ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
2) I'd say there are enough people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
4) What's that... you don't use your Apple TV remote because you have your iPad for that? Exactly! Same for your TV. You put this large, simple monitor on the proper input and tuck that remote into some drawer only to pull out when you need to find AA batteries that work to put some other gadget.
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors,
7) Imagine if Apple decided to make the iPhone once they built their own cellular network throughout the world. It would have failed miserably. The had to partner with telcos to make it work. Not everything can function within a bubble. Imagine if Apple only had the shows the day after they aired and at a cost per episode. Imagine what would happen to cable internet costs if cable companies could no longer make enough profit from cable TV subscribers to pay for the channels they buy.
1. There are currently about 1.5 BILLION TV sets worldwide. China has over 400 Mil, US has about 200 Mil, etc. etc.
2. There are about 237 to 250 Million TVs (all types) sold each year.
3. Apple typically goes after the sweetspot, which for TVs would be between 40 and 65 (maybe 70 inch). The sweetspot has been steadily going from up about 5 inches per year or two, so the sweetspot is around 50 or 55 inch.
Apple could either replace these cable boxes, or just have the TV include DVR, internet access, etc. and just have it connect to the cable/satellite box and just control the thing through an iDevice and route audio through 802.11 ac, which is going to start becoming popular once they get the 802.11ac spec ironed out next year.
The one big problem I failed to mention in my last post is dealing with the ISP's. Most now no longer offer unlimited internet and have data limits of around 200 or 250GB a month. A house with 3 or 4 TV's watching content at the same time not only would eat through a lot of data quickly but you would also need a really fast connection not to cause buffering problems if 4 people are all watching different TVs at the same time. You might be fine with Fiber but slower cable might be problematic streaming to several TVs at once. How could Apple solve that problem short of starting their own fiber ISP which is extremely doubtful. You know the cable companies would give a lot of push back if they start losing cable TV customers and are relegated to just dumb pipes for far less revenue. Apple might be forced to partner with them to avoid this problem.
I think TV sales have been falling because Apple, without doing anything, is building up a HUGE pent up demand as this topic is discussed. I'm actually holding off a purchase of a new TV because of this. Look at how many owners of iPads, iPhones would drop money on a really nice Apple HDTV within 6 months? A TON, and I think everyone knows it and is just trying to figure out when the button is going get pressed.
People with Macs, iPhones, iPads would line up for weeks to get their hands on one and they could EASILY sell them if they had the right set of features, price, etc.
Some houses have 4 and 5 TVs. I think the average household has 2.8 TVs for homes that have TVs.
all of this is logical progression, it's just a matter of what features, what cost, and when.
Home theater systems are getting AirPlay implemented, so they would be ready for accepting the Audio signal from a TV set.
Originally Posted by drblank
1. There are currently about 1.5 BILLION TV sets worldwide. China has over 400 Mil, US has about 200 Mil, etc. etc.
2. There are about 237 to 250 Million TVs (all types) sold each year.
Why not sell a high-margin stocking stuffer that nearly every established TV can use rather than having 1-5% YEARLY of a no-margin market?
IT Will be totally different.
IT Will be Like today s box but with a high quality beamer for a relatively low price and a screen which You can fold, put upright or hang on the ceiling.
The problem with the current generation of tv's is that they're Huge, not scalable, immobile and worst of All they look Like ugly depressing black rectangles when turned off.
IT is going to be revolutionary.
They could offer both an HDTV and digibox solution. The HDTV could be in the sweet spot you mention with FaceTime, a high quality panel and perhaps some other features (like Siri) but the digibox solution could be something to gain wide adoption by havng those with less disposable income, those who are not ready replace their HEC HDTV at this point in time, and those with plenty of smaller TVs to get access to their UI and UX.
I don't expect 802.111ac to necessarily wait for a fully complete spec. They haven't waited that long in the past (although 802.11n was so problematic that there were extenuating circumstances). I do think that no Apple product will get 802.11ac unless they update their routers to support it. If I were to guess I'd say that they updated Mac Pro and routers will get this update within the first 4 months of 2013.
This forces early adopters to buy an Apple TV Screen as their primarily TV, and then via firmware make the ATV boxes dependent on the server inside the TV Screen. It's only available in the 40"-60" range as its intended to be your primary TV. So Apple guarantees you're looking at an Apple logo so you don't forget exactly who solved the nightmare that is current TV.
People will buy an Apple TV for the same reason they buy an iPhone, iPod and iPad ... It looks great and works flawlessly, right out of the box. I don't know anybody who doesn't complain about their TV setup. Whether Apple manages a 100% revolutionary solution, or only an iCloud kind of incremental improvement over time situation, people are going to perceive it as a major step forward over anything anybody else has offered,
Eventually, once Apple has established itself as a TV maker in order to sustain itself, they will most likely bring the software solution to the box by itself in the same way they introduced the iPad mini and other lower cost products to the masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) The 6.1 billion people on Earth? There are more than on the planet but either figure is irrelevant. If Apple only thought to address every living people with each product they would produce nothing.
The point is that its not the people who have figured out the digibox that are Apple's customers... it's those who haven't bought box yet because it's too complicated, or didn't meet their needs.
Quote:
2) I'd say there are enough dissatisfied people in the world that have TVs that are connected with more than rabbit ears to make it a viable market for Apple to go after.
Add that word, and I agree.
d
Quote:
3) If you are using your iPad as a remote for your TV you already have multiple devices. Your iPad, Apple TV, TV, stereo equipment, cable/sat/PVR box, TV remote, Apple TV remote, stereo equipment remote, cable/sat/PVR box remote.
Agreed. but mobility of display (I watch a show for 10 minute on my ipad on the way home on the bus, then switching to one TV in the living room for 20 minutes, while relaxing, then 30 minutes in the den, without losing context), is what I see Apple going to... your iDevice is your bookmark. I really do think the TV set is a shared device. All those TV sets in bedrooms, kitchens, offices... will be eliminated. But the 'navigation' will drive through the iDevice. Apple's Usage model.
Quote:
5) The cable company sets up the cable box and people use it without incident. Apple creates a solution that has a vastly better UI and UX that the cable company will rent you and set up for you that doesn't require replacing every TV in the house. How is this a bad thing?
I'm not saying you replace every tv in the house... the AppleTV box still exists for those where you want to use a TV, but for the most part, most of those TVs are replace with the iPad.
Quote:
6) There is no way around Apple being in the middle unless you A) expect Apple to have a wide range of TV sizes and types from about 20" to 80" and LCD/LED, Plasma, and Projectors,
I disagree on A) Apple will sell 'the' TV set in the house of the future. 3 sizes (small/med/large all larger than their largest Cinema display), LED only. In the future there will be only 1 or 2 TV sets in a house, and one Big One for shared big experience viewing, and that's got a 10 year life span My futurist guess is that Synced HUDs will replace TVs (why do we both need to watch the same screen).
As for multiple version in multiple sizes, shapes, colors, price point: Case in point. iPhone.
Again Case in Point: Are you using ATT email on your iPhone? Apple bypassed all those services from the Carriers.
C) I expect just like the wireless space, the cable space will start to charge a huge sum for bandwidth, and the cable channels will come for free. Satellites will become a huge CDN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
The set-top box idea is dead. Not going to happen.
They just fall right off of modern TVs.
This is also an issue for wall mounted TVs which are getting more popular. Where do people put the cable box for those installations? 'Set top' or below set are both problematic. Cable cards didn't really catch on but Apple's no visible wires design philosophy needs to be accounted for in a clean design.
If Apple does partner with cable companies in a cable/Internet hybrid box it will be accompanied with data plans and data caps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackfrog
Dear Appl Insider. Have you TRIED entering comments from an iPhone?
It's ghastly.
And an iPad too.