HDTV sales tumble 10% as rumors of full-fledged Apple television set have all but vanished

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 95
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    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?

  • Reply 22 of 95
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    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
  • Reply 23 of 95

    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??!!

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    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.


  • Reply 24 of 95

    Except try watching 2160P (4K) content up close at your local HDTV store -- it is truly mesmerizing!  ;)

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post



    I am a geek. I tend to replace my gadgets often. Yet my TVs are from 2007 and 2009. Why? Once you have a quality full HD display with HDMI in there's little reason to replace it until it dies or you want a bigger one. And I got the size I needed back then and haven't felt a need to upgrade.

  • Reply 25 of 95
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,616member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    TVs are a low margin business. They aren't replaced often enough to be a profitable product line. My main tv is from 2006 and it's still working fine for my needs.

    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. 

  • Reply 26 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member

    Faulty logic postulated on imperfect data collection.
  • Reply 27 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    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

    And deliver it how? Across a competitor's network? They're not just going to let someone eat their lunch.
  • Reply 28 of 95
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    sudonym wrote: »
    Apple doesn't care about market share whatsoever.  Profit is the most important thing.
    For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
  • Reply 29 of 95
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    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???
    If the A7 can't, the A8 and further iterations will be in the works and ready in a box by the time 4K displays gain significant traction in the marketplace. The other issue is streaming bandwidth from the ISPs, especially in the U.S. which lags many other countries.
  • Reply 30 of 95
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    ... rumors of full-fledged Apple television set have all but vanished

     

    Surprise!  (Not.)

  • Reply 31 of 95
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post





    For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.

     

    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...

  • Reply 32 of 95
    I can't pretend to predict the future, but I can envision one where "cable TV" will be a quaint, historical memory, where all "channels" instead flow through the Internet connection. Today, the cable installer brings a Motorola or Cisco "set top box" into your home. Imagine if that instead were an Apple TV box, and your channels came through that. Call it HomePlay (just as Apple can drive your future vehicle's dash display via CarPlay).
    Evolution tends to happen in sudden spurts rather than steadily. I can imagine "cable TV" going away in a seismic shift to Internet-based programming. All those immense Apple data centers distributed across the country are gaining equally immense netcast capability, which represents potentially very attractive value-provided facilities for all the content providers. A scenario can be envisioned where both cable- and content-providers win with this arrangement as a new frontier is opened up. Keep in mind that cable companies absolutely hate having to deal with content providers, who continually drive prices up and make cable companies appear to be the perennial bad guys. The overall situation is just so ripe for this change.
  • Reply 33 of 95
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Who knows what Apple's plans are, but one reason for them doing a TV is law of large numbers. Last fiscal year Apple's revenues were $170 billion. A $99 or $199 set top box isn't really going to move the needle on that number. If Apple thinks they could sell enough TVs to really impact that number they might consider it.

    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.

  • Reply 34 of 95
    Apple needs to just make a fantastic looking 4K monitor which people can use both in their living room as a TV or with their MacPros, etc.. Keep Apple TV as an inexpensive, upgradable set top box. Either way, the MacPro needs a great monitor to go with it, they can't just have that Sharp 4K monitor being the one.
  • Reply 35 of 95
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    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.

  • Reply 36 of 95
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post





    For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.

    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.

  • Reply 37 of 95
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,491member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    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.


    HDMI between the box and the TV.

    Ethernet or WiFi between the network and the box.

     

    Why would it be anything else?

  • Reply 38 of 95
    foadfoad Posts: 697member

    4k does look great, but the only form of IP content delivery outside of what Apple might have planned is Netflix and possibly Amazon. I think an actual physical TV from Apple would be great but the economics of it might not be there. If it's a 4k TV Apple would need to have the content lined up and they would likely get the panels from LG or Sony. The software would probably be iOS. With that being said, I don't know how much of a premium an Apple TV would carry to make sense with extended upgrade cycles. People will get the best panel money can buy and having a $99-$199 box with a better platform would probably make more sense than doing a full blown set. I think the current hardware has been doing well because of the price point and simplicity. More and more offices and schools have Apple TVs, which I think has contributed to the most recent success.

    The only way I think Apple would maybe do it if they actual do a set, is maybe like the Mac Pro. Limited quantity, Assembled in the US, panels from LG or Sony, with a premium price point and have it be a halo product with a separate box for those that don't want to pay the premium.
  • Reply 39 of 95
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

     
    Exactly. I have three - two gen 2s and a gen 3. The gen 2s are fine for smaller flat panels in the kitchen and guest bedroom. At $99 a pop, they're chump change. It's a no-brainer to upgrade if the next generation adds significant new capabilities at the same attractive price.


    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.

  • Reply 40 of 95
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    That doesn't make sense. Rumors start that Apple is making a real TV. That would potentially slow sales as folks that want an Apple TV Set wouldn't buy a TV until that is out.

    So now that the rumors have stopped, seemingly telling us that there is no real TV Set, wouldn't folks go ahead and buy that new one
Sign In or Register to comment.