I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
Doesn't the Mac Pro kinda act like this? Its not incredibly un-Applelike. Also, who said it would need a million cables??? 2-3 cables is too many?
?The only cables I think you'd need is power, HDMI, and maybe network if you don't do wireless networking. Why would you need anything else?
I agree, the future is an all IP network, and both cellular and cable are moving towards this end. One still wonders when or how that will happen for terrestrial broadcast OTA via antenna though??!!
Except try watching 2160P (4K) content up close at your local HDTV store -- it is truly mesmerizing!
TV's last and these days they are so good the upgrades are hardly worth it. Super high definition is niche, as is 3d. Half the people out there seem to be watching low res programming on high def screens, with distorted stretched images. The cheapest upgrade people can do is spend the time setting up their TV's properly and bothering to select the HD stream when available. When it comes to TV image quality people have low standards... is my experience.
theothergeoff wrote: »
mj web wrote: »
Apple is best positioned to reshape the mishmash of channels into a cohesive structure where viewers can select shows by genre as opposed to channel or time. But before Apple can release "Steve-o-vision" it must partner with a "Comcast-like" entity who already has the networks sewn up. Apple doesn't need to reinvent the wheel but it does need access to a full spectrum of networks and shows
sudonym wrote: »
Apple doesn't care about market share whatsoever. Profit is the most important thing.
macxpress wrote: »
This is exactly why I think they'd be better off doing a simple box with something like an A6 or A7 in it with amazing software running it. Can the A7 's graphics push out 4K without choking???
Exactly. The day Apple simply goes for profits (when the bean counters come in) is the day you should sell off all of your Apple stock. Profits come with Apple selling to the high-end market using quality parts and amazing software that people want. If you make something thats very profitable, but people don't want it because its a POS then its really not all that profitable. Just go ask Dell this...
I think Apple cares more about market share in the living room than they do profits. The profits will still come from iOS devices, and for as long as the AppleTV is the best box to have in the living room in house full of iOS devices, they will continue to win market share.
Apple moving to an integrated TV display would be a disaster.......repeat.....disaster. There is no one to compete against. They would still be competing against $50 Roku devices that have similar functionality at the end of the day. The main point is....anyone that is not in NEED of a new TV has no reason to go out and buy an Apple HDTV. Aside from the fact that Apple would (could) make the best TV ever made...thats just an assumption based on their contributions to other markets. Everything else would be software, and Apple can already deliver that with a box connected via HDMI.
If you need further proof of that last statement....compare the iMac to a Mac mini w/ a random display from Dell or Acer....and tell me that Apple has done SO MUCH more with the iMac that it makes the other experience not worth it......because in my personal experience that is not the case at all. The iMac is nice, but no reason why I can't have the same great experience with Mac mini & Dell display.
What a horrible intro to this article. "...adding color to recent indications of a shift in Apple's living room go-to-market strategy from an integrated television set to a standalone set-top box."
Really? Where is there any evidence of actual shift in Apple's strategy. Point to any hint from Apple that they ever intended to produce an actual TV set. The only thing that's shifted is the guesswork about what Apple should be or is doing.
Respectfully, comments about selling more Macs while PCs sales drop off, are not necessarily evidence that Apple cares about market share. It's just a statement about relative success in selling products people like. Obviously market share is going to be correlated to sales numbers and more sales is better then fewer sales, but that doesn't mean that market share is a goal. For example, I doubt Apple cares about their share of the "phone market" or even the "more-than-feature phone market" if the latter includes crappy smart phones that are basically free.
I don't think you disagree. I just wouldn't read too much (anything) into the fact that Cook refers to sales of other products.
HDMI between the box and the TV.
Ethernet or WiFi between the network and the box.
Why would it be anything else?
libertyforall wrote: »
Just like an iPhone which you can get for $0-$200, it is the monthly service that gets expensive. Cox charges $47.99 / mo. for their slowest Internet (5 mbs) which is not even guaranteed and at times is too slow to properly stream content without stalling, which really is a buzz kill when watching an exciting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet prices start going up as more people bail on the TV packages in lieu of streaming.
Plus, there is also the likelihood of data caps or throttling in the future. Cutting the cord is a myth.
At one of my houses I have no cable whatsoever, just OTA HD (excellent image quality BTW, way better than cable) and for Internet I have a cell data plan with a WiFi hotspot, which is ok for a vacation home but rather limited in options.