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

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 95
    Quote:

     HDMI between the box and the TV.

    Ethernet or WiFi between the network and the box.

     

    Why would it be anything else?


    One potential answer is HDBaseT.

  • Reply 42 of 95
    Apple needed to get in the HDTV game in about 2006 for this current run on 1080p sets. Tim Cook knows they're now well positioned for Ultra HDTVs -- we will all buy those when there's enough content -- made no sense to enter into an older technology so late.
  • Reply 43 of 95
    sully54sully54 Posts: 85member

    i never understood the need for apple to make an television because it really goes against everything that has made the company successful. majority, if not all, of people don't upgrade their TVs every year or so like they do their phones, computers, etc. an apple television would just be far too unwieldy for apple.

     

    a set top box makes more sense for apple.

  • Reply 44 of 95
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    And deliver it how? Across a competitor's network? They're not just going to let someone eat their lunch.

    No, that's why Apple needs an aggregator like Comcast. Steve-o-Vision is the same shows delivered in an intuitive interface.

  • Reply 45 of 95
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sporlo View Post



    The world needs more dumb TVs.

    As a very long time TiVo fan I heartily agree!

     

    I want stellar image quality and not a whole lot of builtin (pricey and wasted) gewgaws beyond that.

  • Reply 46 of 95
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by egold44 View Post



    Apple needed to get in the HDTV game in about 2006 for this current run on 1080p sets. Tim Cook knows they're now well positioned for Ultra HDTVs -- we will all buy those when there's enough content -- made no sense to enter into an older technology so late.

    TVs are trending bigger and the margins are getting thinner. The super premium price for the new 4K monitors will probably be short lived. I don't think there is enough margin in TVs for Apple to jump into the game, even for the 4K units. I was a little disappointed when they didn't release their own 4K display to match color of the new Mac Pro. They didn't even make a matching keyboard. TVs are expensive to ship too. No margins, no Apple TV.

  • Reply 47 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Apple is smart. It didn't jump on the netbook band wagon or this smart TV set dumbness.

    Or smartphones. Oh, wait.

    Despite all your up-votes your comparison is not good. Net books were cheap laptops that benefited no one. Apple doesn't make cheap junk. The only reason Apple can't sell a full size TV is because, in Steve Jobs own words, there was no viable go-to-market strategy. This is still true. If Apple could get rights to all the world's TV Shows to bundle in an attractive cable-busting monthly package, a subsidised iTV product would have happened already. The fat lard-asses who own all the content wouldn't give Apple the deal they wanted because Apple would dominate the game. The content holders are still pulling the strings. If you think people wouldn't pay Apple $50 per month for access to stream all their TV shows along with a down-payment of $499 for the set on a 2-year contract think again.

    And what about those who don't want a new TV and would rather buy a little box instead you say? Apple would continue to sell the box separately with the TV package. Only making the TV seem like a more attractive deal, given it would be a mere $499 cost for the true Apple living room experience.

    One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote.

    Universal remote you say? They suck donkey-dick.
  • Reply 48 of 95
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    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.


    I guess you haven't seen the new MacPro or iMac?  Apple has no issues with cables and external storage devices.  Have you seen the AppleTV, it has cables.  Even cable boxes today don't require "a million" cables, they require three.  Power, cable in, and HDMI.

  • Reply 49 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    jungmark wrote: »
    TVs are a low margin business. They aren't replaced often enough to be a profitable product line.

    I disagree with your thinking. Phones were a low margin business before Apple. They aren't replaced often enough? Couldn't disagree more. All the more reason why making the best one, which I think Apple could do, allows them to control people's living room experience for a longer duration of time. And given 10 years if they had all the shows people wanted and could sell folks an amazing TV at an attractive subsidised price they'd probably control over 20% of the western world TV market, while doing what Apple is best at: providing a great experience while making money.
  • Reply 50 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    kibitzer wrote: »
    An integrated Apple TV never made a lick of sense three years ago, let alone now.

    There's no viable go to market strat because Apple doesn't control the TV show content. Steve pretty much said so himself on D. It's on YouTube. They wanted to do an integrated TV but couldn't.
  • Reply 51 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    zorinlynx wrote: »
    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.

    Apple has a history making statements like that appear foolish in hindsight.
  • Reply 52 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    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

    Bingo Bango.

    It really is that simple. The only issue is Comcast and their equivalents don't want to budge out of fear of losing control.
  • Reply 53 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    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.

    Imagine instead you pay $499 and sign a two-year contract at your local Apple store and a TV arrives by post where you turn it on and tap your iPhone off it and you're watching your shows. Forget about dangly wireless and little boxes, I'm taking one TV, one wall socket and one remote. Done.
  • Reply 54 of 95
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    pmz wrote: »

    Apple moving to an integrated TV display would be a disaster.......repeat.....disaster.

    In the ideal scenario where Apple has a full licence deal for all the TV Show holders their integrated TV would be a $499 optional package as they'd continue to sell the hockey puck on the store. You could choose to add $499 to your order and give or throw away your existing junk TV and their TV would require no hockey puck. If, if, if, if, if, if, if... they can get the TV show rights that TV will happen. It just makes so much sense. It's completely Apple. Control! Experience! Hardware! Software! It's the only way to provide a good living room experience.
  • Reply 55 of 95
    negafoxnegafox Posts: 480member
    Weird article tryng to toss Apple into the equation. I would imagine that HDTVs are reaching saturation point much like smartphones.
  • Reply 56 of 95
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,718member
    ireland wrote: »
    Or smartphones. Oh, wait.

    Despite all your up-votes your comparison is not good. Net books were cheap laptops that benefited no one. Apple doesn't make cheap junk. The only reason Apple can't sell a full size TV is because, in Steve Jobs own words, there was no viable go-to-market strategy. This is still true. If Apple could get rights to all the world's TV Shows to bundle in an attractive cable-busting monthly package, a subsidised iTV product would have happened already. The fat lard-asses who own all the content wouldn't give Apple the deal they wanted because Apple would dominate the game. The content holders are still pulling the strings. If you think people wouldn't pay Apple $50 per month for access to stream all their TV shows along with a down-payment of $499 for the set on a 2-year contract think again.

    And what about those who don't want a new TV and would rather buy a little box instead you say? Apple would continue to sell the box separately with the TV package. Only making the TV seem like a more attractive deal, given it would be a mere $499 cost for the true Apple living room experience.

    One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote.

    Universal remote you say? They suck donkey-dick.

    Where are you getting $499 from? And what size would the screen be?

    Will Apple release 30", 40", 50" and 60" sets? Or will they just release a new box that can support 1080p and 4k that can be used on any HDTV?

    What about smart phones? If you said the dumb phone bandwagon, it'll fit in with netbooks and smart TVs.
    ireland wrote: »
    I disagree with your thinking. Phones were a low margin business before Apple. They aren't replaced often enough? Couldn't disagree more. All the more reason why making the best one, which I think Apple could do, allows them to control people's living room experience for a longer duration of time. And given 10 years if they had all the shows people wanted and could sell folks an amazing TV at an attractive subsidised price they'd probably control over 20% of the western world TV market, while doing what Apple is best at: providing a great experience while making money.

    TVs aren't replace often. Cell phones are generally replaced when the contract is up. Computers are replaced when they get obsolete due to software or they fail or warranty expires. TVs get replaced when they fail.

    Why would Apple subsidize the tv price? And Apple's "great experience" can rely on a set top box.
  • Reply 57 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    mj web wrote: »
    <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);line-height:22px;">No, t</span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">hat's why Apple needs an aggregator like Comcast. Steve-o-Vision is the same shows delivered in an intuitive interface.</span>

    What's Comcast going to do? They're not allowed to sell their content outside the areas they've been granted.
  • Reply 58 of 95
    maltzmaltz Posts: 148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

    Article Title infers causation, while the correlation is iffy at best.


     

    The headline implies; YOU infer.   :)

     

    That said, you're quite right.  Such a rumor would suppress TV sales, not drive them.  Also, it's not terribly surprising that after a major change in an appliance industry (the adaptation of HD) there would be a surge and then a drop of sales back to normal levels.  Neither the growth nor the decline has much to do with any Apple rumors.

     

    FWIW, I always thought it was dumb for Apple to try to make an entire TV anyway.  I doubt they ever seriously considered it.  Why not just make the AppleTV box that would plug into any TV?  Getting people to buy an Apple phone when they replace their phones every year or two already is one thing.  Getting them to replace a $1,000+ purchase people keep 5-10 years is quite another.

  • Reply 59 of 95
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,408member
    " ... recent indications of a shift in Apple's living room go-to-market strategy " Can I get a link to something that states it ever was their strategy to sell an HDTV please?
  • Reply 60 of 95
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    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.


     

    Dose of reality for all those people who think all OTA broadcast TV is simply going to be replaced by internet steaming on-demand.

Sign In or Register to comment.