47% of consumers interested in Apple television, willing to pay 20% premium

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    "The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."

    This doesn't seem to make much sense. If one makes the logical assumption that those who don't own smart TVs spend no time accessing the internet through their smart TV (since they don't own one), then how do people who DO own smart TVs spend even less time accessing internet content through their smart TVs.

    Group A spends zero time accessing internet through a smart TV (because they don't own one).
    Group B spends less time than group A accessing internet through their smart TV.

    How can you spend less than zero time engaged in an activity?

  • Reply 42 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    "The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."
    This doesn't seem to make much sense. If one makes the logical assumption that those who don't own smart TVs spend no time accessing the internet through their smart TV (since they don't own one), then how do people who DO own smart TVs spend even less time accessing internet content through their smart TVs.
    Group A spends zero time accessing internet through a smart TV (because they don't own one).
    Group B spends less time than group A accessing internet through their smart TV.
    How can you spend less than zero time engaged in an activity?

    The smart TV isn't the only way to access the internet using a TV set, they are using some external box and a dumb panel to do so. If you watch Netflix Instant on a PS3, then there you go, you're accessing internet services without a smart TV.

    I think it's an indication that the built-in feature isn't very well regarded, for whatever reason, be it a bad internal UI, poor coding, limited options or what have you. When I looked at getting a TV last month, whether it had smart TV features weren't even a consideration.
  • Reply 43 of 81


    I still don't get what people think this fictional set is going to be.


     


    I love and use the Apple TV regularly.  In fact, I've had one ever since it was first introduced in 2007.  It's an excellent device.  Small, cheap, feature rich and has a simple, elegant OS.


     


    Are people thinking an Apple branded television set is going to be a regular TV with all this functionality built in?  What more could Apple do?  And what would it be to entice users to replace their current sets?


     


    I hear a lot of talk that Apple needs to iron out content deals before they'd make a television set, but why?  With the current Apple TV I can (and do) buy the shows and movies I want to see a la carte.  Can anyone explain what is hoped to be different with an Apple branded television set?  Cause it seems to me that we've got it all right now and it only costs users $100 to get in the game.  So why all the fuss?

  • Reply 44 of 81


    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    Are people thinking an Apple branded television set is going to be a regular TV with all this functionality built in?  What more could Apple do?  And what would it be to entice users to replace their current sets?



     


    Here's one: they stop selling the box. You want the functionality at all, you buy the Apple TV set.





    I hear a lot of talk that Apple needs to iron out content deals before they'd make a television set, but why?  With the current Apple TV I can (and do) buy the shows and movies I want to see a la carte.  Can anyone explain what is hoped to be different with an Apple branded television set?



     


    Can't buy every show, isn't synchronous with broadcast, and is "too expensive", despite people then going out and dropping two Jacksons on a slow Blu-ray set of the same.


     


    I'm working on an idea for how this could come together well and truly be revolutionary.

  • Reply 45 of 81
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Paul Connell View Post



    "The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."

    This doesn't seem to make much sense. If one makes the logical assumption that those who don't own smart TVs spend no time accessing the internet through their smart TV (since they don't own one), then how do people who DO own smart TVs spend even less time accessing internet content through their smart TVs.

    Group A spends zero time accessing internet through a smart TV (because they don't own one).

    Group B spends less time than group A accessing internet through their smart TV.

    How can you spend less than zero time engaged in an activity?


     


    I had the same reaction at first, until I remembered there are ways to access internet content on TV other than via the TV itself. AppleTV, for instance.

  • Reply 46 of 81
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ifail View Post


     


    I bought a 55" Samsung almost a year ago and the picture on it is fabulous, nothing other than Samsungs own lineup has come close to trumping the TV that i currently have other than obscene new tech that isn't practical to buy yet (4k). My TV is not a "Smart TV" but why would i spend an extra 2-300 dollars on a TV with apps when i own an Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U and an Apple TV? Just owning my Apple TV with its Airplay capability makes owning a Smart TV pointless.



    I have the same set-up and I am very happy. But if Apple brings out a TV it won't just be a screen with an aTV attached. Haven't we all learned by now that we should wait before declaring any rumored Apple product a 'fail'. I don't need a smart TV and from what I have seen in the stores I really don't want one, but I am very excited to see what Apple might bring to the table. 

  • Reply 47 of 81
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    I still don't get what people think this fictional set is going to be.


     


    I love and use the Apple TV regularly.  In fact, I've had one ever since it was first introduced in 2007.  It's an excellent device.  Small, cheap, feature rich and has a simple, elegant OS.


     


    Are people thinking an Apple branded television set is going to be a regular TV with all this functionality built in?  What more could Apple do?  And what would it be to entice users to replace their current sets?


     


    I hear a lot of talk that Apple needs to iron out content deals before they'd make a television set, but why?  With the current Apple TV I can (and do) buy the shows and movies I want to see a la carte.  Can anyone explain what is hoped to be different with an Apple branded television set?  Cause it seems to me that we've got it all right now and it only costs users $100 to get in the game.  So why all the fuss?



    Personally I think Apple will announce deals with major content creators. This may be unrealistic but either way I think Apple's aim will be to offer an alternative to a TV over cable or satellite (you will still be able to attach a box if you want). More and more providers are offering their subscribers the option to view content on-line. I can also see a situation where Apple makes deals with the cable providers whereby their online content is viewed through Apple's television devices. 

  • Reply 48 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Personally I think Apple will announce deals with major content creators. This may be unrealistic but either way I think Apple's aim will be to offer an alternative to a TV over cable or satellite (you will still be able to attach a box if you want). More and more providers are offering their subscribers the option to view content on-line. I can also see a situation where Apple makes deals with the cable providers whereby their online content is viewed through Apple's television devices. 



    I'm not trying to be contrary, but couldn't all that be done with the current $100 Apple TV device?  Why do we need a special $1,000+ HDTV to do any of that?

  • Reply 49 of 81
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    yensid98 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be contrary, but couldn't all that be done with the current $100 Apple TV device?  Why do we need a special $1,000+ HDTV to do any of that?
    Isn't it possible that Apple would do both? A box for people who aren't in the market for a new TV and a TVfor those who are? There's always going to be someone in the market for a TV.
  • Reply 50 of 81
    paxman wrote: »
    Haven't we all learned by now that we should wait before declaring any rumored Apple product a 'fail'. I don't need a smart TV and from what I have seen in the stores I really don't want one, but I am very excited to see what Apple might bring to the table. 

    How true. Actually, people even put down the iPad after seeing the demo, before it was released. Apple lovers too.

    I really look forward for them to release a TV set, even though I don't expect it. It will need to be the right combination of hardware / software / partnerships. The latter being most watched by people, as we all know they are very capable of doing the first two.
  • Reply 51 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Here's one: they stop selling the box. You want the functionality at all, you buy the Apple TV set.


     


    Can't buy every show, isn't synchronous with broadcast, and is "too expensive", despite people then going out and dropping two Jacksons on a slow Blu-ray set of the same.


     


    I'm working on an idea for how this could come together well and truly be revolutionary.



    You'll get no argument from me that having to wait a day after broadcast to view/purchase a TV show via Apple TV isn't the best situation, but that's something that could easily be added to the current Apple TV box.


     


    I guess what I'm getting at is what is the hardware reason for an Apple branded HDTV?  Because the software side is covered by the Apple TV box.  An actual HDTV from Apple needs to bring more than just a software upgrade to the current Apple TV.  No?


     


    I've heard some people thinking about Siri and/or motion control being part of an Apple HDTV.  Those sound pretty cool. But would it be enough to draw the masses?  I tend to doubt that so I think Apple would have to bring something more hardware wise to the table.  Because again, the current Apple TV can be (and has been) upgraded, plus it's not limited to only working with one brand of HDTV so it has a wide potential audience.

  • Reply 52 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Isn't it possible that Apple would do both? A box for people who aren't in the market for a new TV and a TVfor those who are? There's always going to be someone in the market for a TV.


    I REALLY hope so.  The Apple TV box works with any HDTV on the market so it has a very wide audience.  Covering both bases seems the best bet to my mind.  I only question what an Apple branded HDTV could bring to the table that the current Apple TV can't.  Why would the full fledged HDTV be more appealing than a $100 Apple TV?

  • Reply 53 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    I still don't get what people think this fictional set is going to be.


     


    I love and use the Apple TV regularly.  In fact, I've had one ever since it was first introduced in 2007.  It's an excellent device.  Small, cheap, feature rich and has a simple, elegant OS.


     


    Are people thinking an Apple branded television set is going to be a regular TV with all this functionality built in?  What more could Apple do?  And what would it be to entice users to replace their current sets?


     


    I hear a lot of talk that Apple needs to iron out content deals before they'd make a television set, but why?  With the current Apple TV I can (and do) buy the shows and movies I want to see a la carte.  Can anyone explain what is hoped to be different with an Apple branded television set?  Cause it seems to me that we've got it all right now and it only costs users $100 to get in the game.  So why all the fuss?



     


     


    For most people, Apple TV can't replace a cable provider.  I have DirecTV and an Apple TV.  My dream is an Apple set top box that will allow me to select all the channels I want, including local, and pay only for those - not for the Hallmark channel, for example.  


     


    There is more to this than hardware; Jobs said he'd "cracked the code," he wasn't talking about hardware.  Apple could have built that years ago.

  • Reply 54 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    I REALLY hope so.  The Apple TV box works with any HDTV on the market so it has a very wide audience.  Covering both bases seems the best bet to my mind.  I only question what an Apple branded HDTV could bring to the table that the current Apple TV can't.  Why would the full fledged HDTV be more appealing than a $100 Apple TV?



     


    I agree.  In my opinion, makes more sense to have a set top box connected to a larger Thunderbolt display.  Like Mac Mini, basically.

  • Reply 55 of 81


    Hey! Perhaps it's the same 47% that Romney said would vote for President Obama.  lol


     


    President Obama won the election free Apple TV for everyone.  Woohoo

  • Reply 56 of 81
    An Apple Television makes no sense to me.

    Apple iOS products have about a 3-5 year life cycle, then they're no longer upgradable, and shortly thereafter not terribly useable.

    Televisions have a 10-20 year life cycle. If I buy a TV today, I do not expect to replace it for at least 10 years, and possibly considerably longer. My oldest TV is in the kitchen, it's a CRT with a digital converter box and a 1st-gen hacked AppleTV (running through a component to VGA converter, since the TV has a VGA port), and it's nearly 20 years old. I have no plans to replace it as long as it functions. My newest TV is now about 5 years old, and was only purchased when lightning destroyed the previous living room TV (though I wasn't too upset, since I replaced a 50" front projection 3 gun with a 55" LCD). But given that it does 1080p, I'm not going to be replacing it anytime soon either.

    Apple is MUCH more suited to building an external box than a television.
  • Reply 57 of 81
    "The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."
    This doesn't seem to make much sense. If one makes the logical assumption that those who don't own smart TVs spend no time accessing the internet through their smart TV (since they don't own one), then how do people who DO own smart TVs spend even less time accessing internet content through their smart TVs.
    Group A spends zero time accessing internet through a smart TV (because they don't own one).
    Group B spends less time than group A accessing internet through their smart TV.
    How can you spend less than zero time engaged in an activity?

    I don't own a smart TV.

    I do own two TVs with Mac minis connected to them....
  • Reply 58 of 81


    Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

    Apple iOS products have about a 3-5 year life cycle, then they're no longer upgradable, and shortly thereafter not terribly useable.


     


    Mmm… no… They're just fine.


     



    Televisions have a 10-20 year life cycle.


     


    Also, no. TWENTY years?! You would've replaced this sucker only six years ago?


     



     


    You're right that televisions have much longer update cycles than all other modern consumer electronics, but you're still off by about 2-3x.

  • Reply 59 of 81
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,274member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    "When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years," Cook told Brian Williams..


    Tim, walking into the living room to watch TV is what's making it 30 years old.


    Apple TV should be on all your Apple devices, accessable anywhere. Not just in the living room.

  • Reply 60 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    I don't think that is how this works. Apple uses quality components to create their products, resulting in top notch stuff. Competition tries to make things cheap because they don't understand why people would pay for quality and therefor use inferior components. Resulting in crap products, but getting bigger market share because not everyone can afford more expensive products.

    In the long run however, things might actually be cheaper if you buy premium over cheap.


     


    You do realize that the components inside between an Apple product and their competitors are virtually the same right? As far as I can tell, they're all being supplied by the same sources.  So I'm not really sure how you can really decern what's "quality" and what "inferior".

Sign In or Register to comment.