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

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 192


    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

    And an iPad too.


     



    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Did you switch to the mobile site?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 192
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    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?
    Why can't they do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 192
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    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.
    Yep I could see this happening. Lets just say I think Apple designers are working on more than a new MacPro, and its probably not silly glasses either.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 192
    isaidsoisaidso Posts: 750member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by isaidso View Post



    The only way that Apple is coming out with an actual "TV set" (and by the way, they're not), is if it is simply the next iteration (or replacement) of the iMac.


    just curious how you know what Apple is or isn't going to do?


    Apple has to make money. There is no money to be made in Apple airfreighting, marketing, and then customer shipping a 55" monitor (it would just be a Samsung or LG panel anyway) with just a couple little Apple chips inside of it. Put the chips inside of a tiny little box (hmm, what's that called?), Sell half a trillion of them. And / or maybe even put those chips into the All New Re-envisioned iMac (iMacTV?). The money here will be in user interface and content. Not getting into the television set business against Sony Samsung LG Panasonic Vizio Westinghouse Toshiba etc etc etc. There just is no money for them to make in selling and shipping gigantic LCD screens. I mean really; If I have a 65" Sony, is Apple really going to tell me "No, you can't have "iTV" on that 65" Sony. Put it in the garage or sell it and buy a 42"-55" Apple brand television set, and THEN you can have "iTV". I really don't think so. Makes no sense. And would lose.


    edit: And most importantly, it's just unnecessary. They just don't need to make giant screen TVs in order to totally revolutionize TV. The two are not tied together.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 192


    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    Why can't they do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?


     


    Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?


     


    Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 192
    jonshf wrote: »
    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.

    If I had to disrupt this, it would be like this. It goes in-between the Cable/Satellite company box/connection and your TV. It uses HDMI for the connection to TV. It allows multiple channel DVR (not this silly and artificial cap of 2 channels). It has AirPlay built right in, and it has Siri. To me, Siri is the big thing here. For instance here is a plausible scenario:

    Wife: Let's watch "Grey's Anatomy" right now.
    Me: Siri: record "Jeopardy" and change channel to watch "Grey's Anatomy".
    Siri: I will record "Jeopardy" for you. Would you like to watch in standard or high definition?
    Wife: High Definition.
    Siri: Changing channel to ABC HD.
    ….
    Me: Siri, how are the Phoenix Suns doing?
    Siri: (with a small notification bar at the top) The Phoenix Suns are leading in the 3rd quarter, 77 to 69.
    ….
    (After watching a commercial for an upcoming movie)
    Me: Siri: buy two tickets for that movie for Friday night.
    Siri: What time would you like to watch "Life of Pi"?
    Wife: Sometime after 6PM.
    Siri: Ok, I have purchased for you two tickets for "Life of Pi" at the AMC Arrowhead at 6:20 PM. [Assuming AMC Arrowhead is the closest one to me].
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 192
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    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?
    Since when has Apple ever entered a no-margin market and failed to get their margins? The iPad mini seems to be doing just fine. And they don't really seem to care about market share in general.

    The way I see it, there's a huge Apple fan-boi market that has to have every new thing Apple makes, regardless of price. That's enough right there for a massive product launch, and grass-roots marketing campaign for a truly great new product.

    And you said it yourself, it's about content. Maybe Apple entering the TV market is exactly what that industry needs to get consumers back into the mindset of paying a premium for a flat screen TV. With consumers perceiving Apple products as having a higher value, and Apple initially makes the Apple TV "system" the only way to expand their Apple ecosystem into the living room, and take advantage of Apple's presumably revolutionary interface, and more importantly media content deals, the Apple TV may do exactly that.

    But again, as you have said, there will be no significant entry into TV of any kind without a content solution. Cooks statements indicate they have made some progress on that front.

    In the end, what if the Apple TV set fails? What has Apple lost really? There's no doubt it will be a fantastic product, and i'ts the software and content that counts anyway. The TV set itself gives Apple a massive media marketing campaign and a flagship product with which to showcase the iOS-based TV ecosystem (I mean can you imagine Cook sitting in front of a 60" Samsung running ATV through its paces?). It will get glowing press reviews and make people dream of sitting in front of one effortlessly accessing their favorite media content. It will most likely get people to switch to Apple for it, thus building their content user base. Ultimately if Apple can't sell enough sets to drive its manufacture of them, they will announce that they are now making the same interface available in a streamlined box for use with any TV thus encouraging a mass defection from other TV solutions to Apple after the high profile success of its Apple TV. Thereafter, if they ultimately discontinue the set due to poor sales, nobody will notice or care.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 192
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Why stick with a set-top box when even in *this* segment, Apple can design and release a complete turn-key solution - hardware AND software?

    Apple software running on someone else's non-Apple branded and non-Apple designed hardware makes no sense as a long-term strategy. It is not a solution. Treat the TV like any other device to be re-imagined. The "computer" itself, MP3 players, phones, tablets, and now TVs. Same deal. Just another device to re-make. 

    How can a TV be re-imagined if it absolutely needs to be built more or less what's already exist? Can't make a new form factor like the iPhone, can't make a sleek sexy redesign of tablets like the iPad and cannot take time getting content deals with the industry like with the iPod.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?

    Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.

    They do sell their MacBook lines and iMac alongside the Mac mini and Mac Pro. That would be an equivalent to an Apple HDTV and Apple TV where the later in each can be connected to non-Apple monitors. For the Mac mini it's an option for those that want to spend less to get a Mac and for the Mac Pro it's for those that have unique monitor needs that Apple can't supply with their single monitor solution.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Did you switch to the mobile site?

    This is why AI should create an articles regarding any major site changes. One, it lets people know about it. Two, it keeps the articles more on topic if there is a proper thread in which to have the discussion.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 192
    robogobo wrote: »
    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.

    Those are doing well enough that I am not fearful Apple will try to collapse a rumored future TV product and the current set top box into a single product. Apple is not run by stupid people. These products are at two completely different price points and address different and non-overlapping market needs. Apple will also sell a buttload more set top boxes than a TV, which strategically puts the Apple user experience into more homes than if they simply tried to replace the $99 box with a full price Apple television. Think of it as a "gateway drug" for people who aren't ready (or perhaps by choice unwilling) to buy Apple's rumored future TV.

    Or you could simply do the math: add up all the projected revenues from these different product lines and (presumably iTunes content sales) and see where the profits land. I don't have hard numbers, but my intuitive feel is that Apple is better off keeping a set top box while also selling an integrated TV. Hopefully it will be much more than just a TV with the set top box built in.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 192
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    Since when has Apple ever entered a no-margin market and failed to get their margins? The iPad mini seems to be doing just fine. And they don't really seem to care about market share in general.
    The way I see it, there's a huge Apple fan-boi market that has to have every new thing Apple makes, regardless of price. That's enough right there for a massive product launch, and grass-roots marketing campaign for a truly great new product.
    And you said it yourself, it's about content. Maybe Apple entering the TV market is exactly what that industry needs to get consumers back into the mindset of paying a premium for a flat screen TV. With consumers perceiving Apple products as having a higher value, and Apple initially makes the Apple TV "system" the only way to expand their Apple ecosystem into the living room, and take advantage of Apple's presumably revolutionary interface, and more importantly media content deals, the Apple TV may do exactly that.
    But again, as you have said, there will be no significant entry into TV of any kind without a content solution. Cooks statements indicate they have made some progress on that front.
    In the end, what if the Apple TV set fails? What has Apple lost really? There's no doubt it will be a fantastic product, and i'ts the software and content that counts anyway. The TV set itself gives Apple a massive media marketing campaign and a flagship product with which to showcase the iOS-based TV ecosystem (I mean can you imagine Cook sitting in front of a 60" Samsung running ATV through its paces?). It will get glowing press reviews and make people dream of sitting in front of one effortlessly accessing their favorite media content. It will most likely get people to switch to Apple for it, thus building their content user base. Ultimately if Apple can't sell enough sets to drive its manufacture of them, they will announce that they are now making the same interface available in a streamlined box for use with any TV thus encouraging a mass defection from other TV solutions to Apple after the high profile success of its Apple TV. Thereafter, if they ultimately discontinue the set due to poor sales, nobody will notice or care.

    Because the iPad mini comes with the iOS ecosystem that many people are heavily invested in, and though it's more expensive than the competition its cheaper than the iPad. Not many people had smartphones before the iPhone and even less owned a tablet but everyone has at least one TV. It was easy for people to give up feature(less) phones for the iPhone. Don't see people dumping their $1000+ TV for a Apple branded TV.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    As for multiple version in multiple sizes, shapes, colors, price point: Case in point. iPhone.

    You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.

    The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 192
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member


    Siri? LOL. It has been out over a year, is still in beta and has an incomplete feature set on the device is was rolled out on. If Apple is going to port it to a television they should probably fix it and release a final version for the iPhone first.


     


    -kpluck

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 192


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    This is why AI should create an articles regarding any major site changes. One, it lets people know about it. Two, it keeps the articles more on topic if there is a proper thread in which to have the discussion.


     


    Oh, they did. It just wasn't… out yet… then… So people ignored it. image

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kpluck wrote: »
    Siri? LOL. It has been out over a year, is still in beta and has an incomplete feature set on the device is was rolled out on. If Apple is going to port it to a television they should probably fix it and release a final version for the iPhone first.

    -kpluck

    in what way would removing the beta label off the iPhone mean it's ready for use with a TV? It's quite a different set of commands for a TV. I'd wager it's also considerably smaller. The system has to know basic controls for a TV, including knowing the commands for recording and finding a show. I guess it could have the reminders that will then post to your devices via iCloud and iTunes playback would be nice but I doubt the location, search and other Siri features would be utilized out of the gate, if ever, for a TV.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 192
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
    The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.

    I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 192
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
    The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard.

    I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 192
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I watch TV my 2 eyes. How do you? How can Apple change that? Roku has a unified search that will look for a query in Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon. People aren't going to buy TV and then wait for content deals like with the iPod.

    Huh?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 192
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,362member
    Boy that Siri implementation expectation is persistent.
    Worst possible idea... Shrug..
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.