My idea for Apple to start making bottled water, is a great idea, its branching out into new areas for the company, its an accessory that would work in conjunction with the Nike training program, and could then be expanded upon to include energy drinks!
why are YOU the ONLY one allowed to have a vision?
why can't I?
I mean the proof is there after all, Steve regularly uses water, just like you mentioned he owns a plasma set and see that as proof to back your claims, why can't I?
Apples own brand bottled water 3.0 is coming, just you wait, it would fit in with all the talk of product transition as well... because we know Apple stuff is cool.. and once it gets cool enough, it transitions into ice!
No, exactly the opposite. They don't have Apple's expertise, taste, talent, vision, foresight, leadership or OS X to pull it off in such a great way that it would make the experience wonderful, the software great, or the hardware to-die-for. Unlike Apple.
So, are you sort of hinting that they should, maybe, close up their respective business' and give the money back to their investors?
A TV is a display device. The UI is simple as stated above. On/Off, Vol, channel/input sources and that's it. The complications are all in the integration of the various components required in a home theater. Since Apple can't replace those components and the companies that own them won't allow integration there's no way Apple can make the experience seamless.
Spot on, I mentioned that earlier, but he wouldn't address it.
All the holes are mentioned and he ignores them, because he BELIEVES, but common sense or practical reasoning is wrong, like in the case of the DVD drive in the aTV he wanted that would magically stay the same size, ignoring the laws of physics.
So, are you sort of hinting that they should, maybe, close up their respective business' and give the money back to their investors?
What are you talking about? What is wrong with you?
That was response was to this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee
So your saying that Netflix should sell a TV instead of their box? That NBC should sell a TV dedicated to Hulu? Any everybody else should sell TVs instead of their new internet enabled devices.
I said:
They don't have Apple's expertise, taste, talent, vision, foresight, leadership or OS X to pull it off in such a great way that it would make the experience wonderful, the software great, or the hardware to-die-for. Unlike Apple.
Actually, I think Apple may be right near the edge of being able to launch a killer television. We have the Remote app for iPod touch/iPhone, we have Bluetooth keyboards which make it possible to use the television as a web browser/e-mail platform for those who wants to do that, and we have Mac OS/Apple TV for the content management. It would be a neat product.
Can't say whether it would carry 30% margins like Apple prefers, but it would be a neat product.
Ireland, I hate to burst your bubble, but I have to agree with everyone else here.
Apple has seen the light and found out that the best way to make money is to make your product accessible to as many people as possible.
Some people may disagree, but I believe that's a big part of what motivated them to switch to the x86 platform.
In making a TV, Apple would literally be tying their own noose. TV margins are SUPER slim right now. If they wanted to make any sort of profit, they wouldn't touch TVs.
But lets put that aside and discuss options. Right now, there are four options for TVs: LCD, DLP, Projection (ok, there's rear projection too, but those are getting rarer and rarer by the day).
There are plenty of reasons why there are four choices. People who want a small panel but can't afford a Panasonic Kuro go LCD. People who want a big picture, but can't afford projection go DLP, etc.
By entering the TV market, Apple would have to limit themselves to one segment of buyer. Most likely, LCD (since a large majority of people can't afford a plasma screen--if you're saying No right now, wait till the end of my post). They'd be cutting themselves out a small piece of the pie. TVs generally have a long lifespan. Their market would consist of people who are still waiting to make the HD jump and rabid Apple fans. In other words they're probably have to end up waiting 5 years to really start selling these things and maaaybe turn a profit (remember the super slim margin on LCDs???). I don't think Steve Jobs is crazy enough to wait 5 years for a product to catch on.
Now, you're also saying that Apple would improve the TV by adding a beautiful GUI. Well, my Sony KDR 60A3000 has a great user interface (it uses the XDNA one--the same one the PS3 uses). In fact, all new Sony TVs use this interface. It has won several awards for its design. I'm sure anyone who has played a PS3 would agree with me that it is a great GUI. Its somewhat Apple like, and to be honest, apart from changing the icons, I'm not sure they could improve on it.
You also state that Apple would provide IPTV to these boxes. Ok. Lets reason this one out. I'll start small and make my grand point later. Assuming Apple strikes deals with every TV studio out there, you still would have to wait to hours to download your favorite shows. You would have to wait even longer to download your favorite shows in HD. Secondly, look at who is going to be providing the bandwidth for all these downloads: cable and phone providers. They each have their own corporate interests to protect. You think they're gonna let you download 100s of Gigs of TV shows? And lastly, assuming all these products are solved, that Steve Jobs pulled a Jedi mindtrick on everyone, you still have the fact that Apple won't be able to provide streaming IPTV. Hell, even the cable/phonecompanies can barely pull it off, and they have TONS of infrastructure. What is Apple going to do, multicast HBO? LOL. You seem not to understand the amount of infrastructure that allows you to turn on your cable box and watch Teletubbies. Apple would probably have to invest more capital than they have to start streaming TV (to create an experience comparable to the one you're receiving today). If you're saying No at this point, see my point later on)
Now, if you say that my whole cable company thing is wrong, and you say people will still get cable from their own companies, you're still going to be left with another box(the cable box). Thus, the point of an Apple TV is none.
Now then, are there any more ridiculous ideas you'd like me to shoot down?
-----
A Note on Plasmas: if you say plasmas are cheap, and point at the sets going on sale at Frys or Newegg for ~$1k are wonderful, I will call you an idiot. Those TVs have a res of 1024x768 usually and are terrible. A GOOD plasma screen (which is any plasma that has a good contrast ratio and 1080p resolution) is going to run you >$3k.
Another Note on Cable TV: To create a comparable experience to the one you're currently receiving, Apple would have to set up large stations to capture local broadcasts and satellite (I'm talking K band here) receivers to pick up all the other stations in every metropolitan area. We're talking HUNDREDS of cities. Now you may say, well what about OTA HD? Well, in a large city, with tall skyscrapers and apartment buildings, not everyone is gonna be able to receive their local stations. Assuming that Apple could do all of that though, then you'd have to worry about antitrust laws, and that's a whole other bag of issues.
Ireland, I hate to burst your bubble, but I have to agree with everyone else here.
Apple has seen the light and found out that the best way to make money is to make your product accessible to as many people as possible.
Some people may disagree, but I believe that's a big part of what motivated them to switch to the x86 platform.
In making a TV, Apple would literally be tying their own noose. TV margins are SUPER slim right now. If they wanted to make any sort of profit, they wouldn't touch TVs.
Fair enough, but they aren't making money from the Apple TV box, so in that regard that's a non-argument. In the high numbers they are selling new products at lately, combined with the small product line they usually make, when launching a new product (family). I.E. they make one phone in two colors and storage sizes - essentially one model. One TV model, or even two would allow them to keep production costs "relatively" low, and squeeze out a larger profit than they do per Apple TV (box) sold. They could start it off at "more" premium prices, they'd get the takers, while bringing costs down over time (and maybe adding another model or not). And they could continue (and likely would) to sell the Apple TV (box) for those who already have a new TV, or cannot afford Apple's one.
Apple could bring out a new TV and sell a million of them in a couple of months, someone like Pioneer could never sell that many in such a short time period, so they "have to" charge a HUGE PRICE (compared to what Apple would have to). Apple would also sell a lot of them through great hardware and software design, revolutionary services, great publicity (i.e. hyped event and such), great marketing and brand loyalty and support.
Now, you're also saying that Apple would improve the TV by adding a beautiful GUI. Well, my Sony KDR 60A3000 has a great user interface (it uses the XDNA one--the same one the PS3 uses). In fact, all new Sony TVs use this interface. It has won several awards for its design. I'm sure anyone who has played a PS3 would agree with me that it is a great GUI. Its somewhat Apple like, and to be honest, apart from changing the icons, I'm not sure they could improve on it.
Yeah I've seen it, it's great. It shows design matters, hardware and "software". People will buy for design, and Apple would sell (many) TV's for those reasons too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xc3ll
You also state that Apple would provide IPTV to these boxes. Ok. Lets reason this one out. I'll start small and make my grand point later. Assuming Apple strikes deals with every TV studio out there, you still would have to wait to hours to download your favorite shows.
TV Shows would be watchable in a matter of seconds with modern broadband. They could even design it in such a way that you get a quick burst of data over the first few seconds (by caching the start of every show in the server) to allow immediate viewing. After all, you can begin watching those movies very quickly after clicking "rent". Apple would find a way. HD TV Shows would likely be a different matter, I'll give you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xc3ll
Secondly, look at who is going to be providing the bandwidth for all these downloads: cable and phone providers. They each have their own corporate interests to protect. You think they're gonna let you download 100s of Gigs of TV shows?
Now that is the biggest issue with iPTV. Apple would have to work it out
If Apple were to build a TV then one area they could improve it would be to make it smart to the device you're using. I've just upgraded my TV to a new Sony, a Blu-Ray Player and new Home Cinema system. I also have a BT Vision box for Freeview and recording TV. The latter is plugged in via Scart, the other two via HDMI. Why can't the TV automatically adjust to the HDMI or AV channel that I'm using? Ie. when I switch on Blu-Ray it jumps to that and when I switch it off it goes back to BT Vision? Maybe I can do that already, but Sony certainly don't tell you how. Simple and the kinda thing Apple would do well. And just one remote! Whether it would justify entering a highly saturated and competitive market, however....
it seems Brendan that you assume no matter the problem "Apple will sort it out"
they must have a magic wand, as far as your concerned.
-
have you done any research on the wholesale cost of a TV compared to the cost to the customer?
have you done any research on how many sets panasonic sell per month? or Sony? or anyone else for that matter?
whats the market ratio for "luxury" sets as opposed to cheapo ones? {I assume Apple wouldn't sully their name with the cheapo sets, Apple don't really DO cheapo. deny that and you loose the right to continue.}
show me the figures that you have and convince me.
other wise it all seems like a load of wishful thinking.
--
xc3ll made some good points, that you just wished away. but what he did was speak only about the american market, and you live {TADA!!} in ireland, do you even have a OTA digital broadcast up and running? or is it all Sky? in which case you will have to 1 have a box hanging off the TV anyway, and 2 deal with THAT boxes interface.
do you honesty think that Murdoc would let Apple in to compete against sky?
whats the penetration of Sky in ireland at the moment? does Virgin/NTL or telewest compete?
IF Apple could provide a solution to all the TV viewing needs in the UK or Ireland and bring it out tomorrow, do you honestly think there wouldn't be a price blitz from Sky? the special offers would fly, the price to join and the package offers would fall in order to compete, and what would Joe or Paddy public do? go for the "cheaper" more familiar SKY deal that all his mates have, the football would get hyped and Apple with their offering "that you have ta get a new feckin TV for!!" would be crushed out of it.
and thats just in Ireland!
I doubt if you will bother to address any of this, because you can't really argue in the reality of things, and keep relying on"Apple just WOULD" because you believe.. and ignore the fact that no-one can see how it would be profitable.
great idea to dream about, but its not sound business. Unless of course you have some of those figures I asked you for??
Go on, I challenge you to convince me with FACTS taken from REALITY.
show me the figures that you have and convince me.
other wise it all seems like a load of wishful thinking.
great idea to dream about, but its not sound business.
Thanks Walter and also everybody else who agrees with us in this respect.
This horse has been beat up so badly and the truth is nothing new was shown here in the last year and a half that backs up the idea Apple will indeed come up with a TV and be profitable selling it. They actually can do that, but boy, I have hard time believing they will sell millions like Ireland predicts.
If anybody follow a bit the flat panel TV market will see that most companies are having hard time. From the cheap ones like Olevia, Vizio, etc. to the expensive ones and high end like Pioneer, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, etc.
There is nothing wrong with their displays, just hard market to be in and with very low profit margins and huge competition. Many of these companies are re-structuring their business and outsourcing in order to stay alive.
As for the UI, it definitely can be improved and I hope so. I look forward to see Apple doing that but they DO NOT need to create a TV in order to make the experience better. They can do that on the AppleTV box.
For me the biggest drawback for Apple to be successful on the living room is about bringing content, LOTS OF IT!. Once they achieve that in higher quality and provide the nice experience using it, I think they will succeed as they did with the iPod. There is also a big problem like xc3ll point out about everybody wants a piece of the pie. Not an easy task.
Fair enough, but they aren't making money from the Apple TV box, so in that regard that's a non-argument. In the high numbers they are selling new products at lately, combined with the small product line they usually make, when launching a new product (family). I.E. they make one phone in two colors and storage sizes - essentially one model. One TV model, or even two would allow them to keep production costs "relatively" low, and squeeze out a larger profit than they do per Apple TV (box) sold. They could start it off at "more" premium prices, they'd get the takers, while bringing costs down over time (and maybe adding another model or not). And they could continue (and likely would) to sell the Apple TV (box) for those who already have a new TV, or cannot afford Apple's one.
We had this round before, Apple will not get by with only one or two models. After our last round I went to my local Fry's (a big box electronics store - the only kind of place selling TVs anymore) and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models. To compete Apple will have to match or most people will go to the model that comes closest to meeting their needs. (Or decor.)
As for the AppleTV, Apple has alot less money tied up in it then they would with a television (I would guess a tenth of the amount) and can afford to wait. A television would put them at a much bigger risk and need for a quicker return than they need for their current AppleTV.
and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models. To compete Apple will have to match or most people will go to the model that comes closest to meeting their needs.
True,
Plus on top of that Apple has to figure out what segment they are after. If it is the hi-end, then they have to offer models on the 42" to up 60" plus, where the whole idea of AIO TV makes even less sense.
Then the other segment is the smaller flat panels, where the idea of AIO is more acceptable.
Also consider that people tend to keep their TVs for more time than they would be replacing computers or an AppleTV box. I had my Sony CRT for 12 years and I just replace it for a Kuro Pioneer 60". I will keep that display easily for more than 5 years. So, the last thing I would like to have is a piece of hardware built-in like an AppleTV that can be outdate in two years at the most.
So, the AIO for the hi-end is definately not a feasible option. Then the option left is the low-end. Is Apple really after that?
Keep in mind Apple charges premium prices for their goods, so if they indeed come up with a TV it will cost a lot and probably would be geared more towards the hi-end, I would think.
We had this round before, Apple will not get by with only one or two models. After our last round I went to my local Fry's (a big box electronics store - the only kind of place selling TVs anymore) and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models.
And this differs from the number of phones each other phone-maker has how?
Comments
It's terrible. Like you sense of sarcasm.
My idea for Apple to start making bottled water, is a great idea, its branching out into new areas for the company, its an accessory that would work in conjunction with the Nike training program, and could then be expanded upon to include energy drinks!
why are YOU the ONLY one allowed to have a vision?
why can't I?
I mean the proof is there after all, Steve regularly uses water, just like you mentioned he owns a plasma set and see that as proof to back your claims, why can't I?
Apples own brand bottled water 3.0 is coming, just you wait, it would fit in with all the talk of product transition as well... because we know Apple stuff is cool.. and once it gets cool enough, it transitions into ice!
why can't you see my vision?
I don't think you're as funny as you think you are. What with your overuse of those emoticons and all.
hello pot, meet kettle.
No, exactly the opposite. They don't have Apple's expertise, taste, talent, vision, foresight, leadership or OS X to pull it off in such a great way that it would make the experience wonderful, the software great, or the hardware to-die-for. Unlike Apple.
So, are you sort of hinting that they should, maybe, close up their respective business' and give the money back to their investors?
A TV is a display device. The UI is simple as stated above. On/Off, Vol, channel/input sources and that's it. The complications are all in the integration of the various components required in a home theater. Since Apple can't replace those components and the companies that own them won't allow integration there's no way Apple can make the experience seamless.
Spot on, I mentioned that earlier, but he wouldn't address it.
All the holes are mentioned and he ignores them, because he BELIEVES, but common sense or practical reasoning is wrong, like in the case of the DVD drive in the aTV he wanted that would magically stay the same size, ignoring the laws of physics.
Right on. That's not what I mean. Besides, a TV wouldn't need such high resolution.
someone sort of agrees with you and they are still in the wrong.
its almost like your a flat earther
someone sort of agrees with you and they are still in the wrong.
its almost like your a flat earther
I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I agreed with his point entirely.
The "right on" part, that means "exactly".
The second part was for mdriftmeyer. You see now your own sarcasm is blinding you.
So, are you sort of hinting that they should, maybe, close up their respective business' and give the money back to their investors?
What are you talking about? What is wrong with you?
That was response was to this comment:
So your saying that Netflix should sell a TV instead of their box? That NBC should sell a TV dedicated to Hulu? Any everybody else should sell TVs instead of their new internet enabled devices.
I said:
They don't have Apple's expertise, taste, talent, vision, foresight, leadership or OS X to pull it off in such a great way that it would make the experience wonderful, the software great, or the hardware to-die-for. Unlike Apple.
I.E. Apple should make the TV.
Can't say whether it would carry 30% margins like Apple prefers, but it would be a neat product.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...crackable-lock
Apple has seen the light and found out that the best way to make money is to make your product accessible to as many people as possible.
Some people may disagree, but I believe that's a big part of what motivated them to switch to the x86 platform.
In making a TV, Apple would literally be tying their own noose. TV margins are SUPER slim right now. If they wanted to make any sort of profit, they wouldn't touch TVs.
But lets put that aside and discuss options. Right now, there are four options for TVs: LCD, DLP, Projection (ok, there's rear projection too, but those are getting rarer and rarer by the day).
There are plenty of reasons why there are four choices. People who want a small panel but can't afford a Panasonic Kuro go LCD. People who want a big picture, but can't afford projection go DLP, etc.
By entering the TV market, Apple would have to limit themselves to one segment of buyer. Most likely, LCD (since a large majority of people can't afford a plasma screen--if you're saying No right now, wait till the end of my post). They'd be cutting themselves out a small piece of the pie. TVs generally have a long lifespan. Their market would consist of people who are still waiting to make the HD jump and rabid Apple fans. In other words they're probably have to end up waiting 5 years to really start selling these things and maaaybe turn a profit (remember the super slim margin on LCDs???). I don't think Steve Jobs is crazy enough to wait 5 years for a product to catch on.
Now, you're also saying that Apple would improve the TV by adding a beautiful GUI. Well, my Sony KDR 60A3000 has a great user interface (it uses the XDNA one--the same one the PS3 uses). In fact, all new Sony TVs use this interface. It has won several awards for its design. I'm sure anyone who has played a PS3 would agree with me that it is a great GUI. Its somewhat Apple like, and to be honest, apart from changing the icons, I'm not sure they could improve on it.
You also state that Apple would provide IPTV to these boxes. Ok. Lets reason this one out. I'll start small and make my grand point later. Assuming Apple strikes deals with every TV studio out there, you still would have to wait to hours to download your favorite shows. You would have to wait even longer to download your favorite shows in HD. Secondly, look at who is going to be providing the bandwidth for all these downloads: cable and phone providers. They each have their own corporate interests to protect. You think they're gonna let you download 100s of Gigs of TV shows? And lastly, assuming all these products are solved, that Steve Jobs pulled a Jedi mindtrick on everyone, you still have the fact that Apple won't be able to provide streaming IPTV. Hell, even the cable/phonecompanies can barely pull it off, and they have TONS of infrastructure. What is Apple going to do, multicast HBO? LOL. You seem not to understand the amount of infrastructure that allows you to turn on your cable box and watch Teletubbies. Apple would probably have to invest more capital than they have to start streaming TV (to create an experience comparable to the one you're receiving today). If you're saying No at this point, see my point later on)
Now, if you say that my whole cable company thing is wrong, and you say people will still get cable from their own companies, you're still going to be left with another box(the cable box). Thus, the point of an Apple TV is none.
Now then, are there any more ridiculous ideas you'd like me to shoot down?
-----
A Note on Plasmas: if you say plasmas are cheap, and point at the sets going on sale at Frys or Newegg for ~$1k are wonderful, I will call you an idiot. Those TVs have a res of 1024x768 usually and are terrible. A GOOD plasma screen (which is any plasma that has a good contrast ratio and 1080p resolution) is going to run you >$3k.
Another Note on Cable TV: To create a comparable experience to the one you're currently receiving, Apple would have to set up large stations to capture local broadcasts and satellite (I'm talking K band here) receivers to pick up all the other stations in every metropolitan area. We're talking HUNDREDS of cities. Now you may say, well what about OTA HD? Well, in a large city, with tall skyscrapers and apartment buildings, not everyone is gonna be able to receive their local stations. Assuming that Apple could do all of that though, then you'd have to worry about antitrust laws, and that's a whole other bag of issues.
Ireland, I hate to burst your bubble, but I have to agree with everyone else here.
Apple has seen the light and found out that the best way to make money is to make your product accessible to as many people as possible.
Some people may disagree, but I believe that's a big part of what motivated them to switch to the x86 platform.
In making a TV, Apple would literally be tying their own noose. TV margins are SUPER slim right now. If they wanted to make any sort of profit, they wouldn't touch TVs.
Fair enough, but they aren't making money from the Apple TV box, so in that regard that's a non-argument. In the high numbers they are selling new products at lately, combined with the small product line they usually make, when launching a new product (family). I.E. they make one phone in two colors and storage sizes - essentially one model. One TV model, or even two would allow them to keep production costs "relatively" low, and squeeze out a larger profit than they do per Apple TV (box) sold. They could start it off at "more" premium prices, they'd get the takers, while bringing costs down over time (and maybe adding another model or not). And they could continue (and likely would) to sell the Apple TV (box) for those who already have a new TV, or cannot afford Apple's one.
Apple could bring out a new TV and sell a million of them in a couple of months, someone like Pioneer could never sell that many in such a short time period, so they "have to" charge a HUGE PRICE (compared to what Apple would have to). Apple would also sell a lot of them through great hardware and software design, revolutionary services, great publicity (i.e. hyped event and such), great marketing and brand loyalty and support.
Now, you're also saying that Apple would improve the TV by adding a beautiful GUI. Well, my Sony KDR 60A3000 has a great user interface (it uses the XDNA one--the same one the PS3 uses). In fact, all new Sony TVs use this interface. It has won several awards for its design. I'm sure anyone who has played a PS3 would agree with me that it is a great GUI. Its somewhat Apple like, and to be honest, apart from changing the icons, I'm not sure they could improve on it.
Yeah I've seen it, it's great. It shows design matters, hardware and "software". People will buy for design, and Apple would sell (many) TV's for those reasons too.
You also state that Apple would provide IPTV to these boxes. Ok. Lets reason this one out. I'll start small and make my grand point later. Assuming Apple strikes deals with every TV studio out there, you still would have to wait to hours to download your favorite shows.
TV Shows would be watchable in a matter of seconds with modern broadband. They could even design it in such a way that you get a quick burst of data over the first few seconds (by caching the start of every show in the server) to allow immediate viewing. After all, you can begin watching those movies very quickly after clicking "rent". Apple would find a way. HD TV Shows would likely be a different matter, I'll give you that.
Secondly, look at who is going to be providing the bandwidth for all these downloads: cable and phone providers. They each have their own corporate interests to protect. You think they're gonna let you download 100s of Gigs of TV shows?
Now that is the biggest issue with iPTV. Apple would have to work it out
it seems Brendan that you assume no matter the problem "Apple will sort it out"
they must have a magic wand, as far as your concerned.
-
have you done any research on the wholesale cost of a TV compared to the cost to the customer?
have you done any research on how many sets panasonic sell per month? or Sony? or anyone else for that matter?
whats the market ratio for "luxury" sets as opposed to cheapo ones? {I assume Apple wouldn't sully their name with the cheapo sets, Apple don't really DO cheapo. deny that and you loose the right to continue.}
show me the figures that you have and convince me.
other wise it all seems like a load of wishful thinking.
--
xc3ll made some good points, that you just wished away. but what he did was speak only about the american market, and you live {TADA!!} in ireland, do you even have a OTA digital broadcast up and running? or is it all Sky? in which case you will have to 1 have a box hanging off the TV anyway, and 2 deal with THAT boxes interface.
do you honesty think that Murdoc would let Apple in to compete against sky?
whats the penetration of Sky in ireland at the moment? does Virgin/NTL or telewest compete?
IF Apple could provide a solution to all the TV viewing needs in the UK or Ireland and bring it out tomorrow, do you honestly think there wouldn't be a price blitz from Sky? the special offers would fly, the price to join and the package offers would fall in order to compete, and what would Joe or Paddy public do? go for the "cheaper" more familiar SKY deal that all his mates have, the football would get hyped and Apple with their offering "that you have ta get a new feckin TV for!!" would be crushed out of it.
and thats just in Ireland!
I doubt if you will bother to address any of this, because you can't really argue in the reality of things, and keep relying on"Apple just WOULD" because you believe.. and ignore the fact that no-one can see how it would be profitable.
great idea to dream about, but its not sound business. Unless of course you have some of those figures I asked you for??
Go on, I challenge you to convince me with FACTS taken from REALITY.
And so is Walter right
first thing you've said I can agree with
show me the figures that you have and convince me.
other wise it all seems like a load of wishful thinking.
great idea to dream about, but its not sound business.
Thanks Walter and also everybody else who agrees with us in this respect.
This horse has been beat up so badly and the truth is nothing new was shown here in the last year and a half that backs up the idea Apple will indeed come up with a TV and be profitable selling it. They actually can do that, but boy, I have hard time believing they will sell millions like Ireland predicts.
If anybody follow a bit the flat panel TV market will see that most companies are having hard time. From the cheap ones like Olevia, Vizio, etc. to the expensive ones and high end like Pioneer, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, etc.
There is nothing wrong with their displays, just hard market to be in and with very low profit margins and huge competition. Many of these companies are re-structuring their business and outsourcing in order to stay alive.
As for the UI, it definitely can be improved and I hope so. I look forward to see Apple doing that but they DO NOT need to create a TV in order to make the experience better. They can do that on the AppleTV box.
For me the biggest drawback for Apple to be successful on the living room is about bringing content, LOTS OF IT!. Once they achieve that in higher quality and provide the nice experience using it, I think they will succeed as they did with the iPod. There is also a big problem like xc3ll point out about everybody wants a piece of the pie. Not an easy task.
Also, this is a nice thread from macjello:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=89715
Cheers
first thing you've said I can agree with
Oh Kaay..
Fair enough, but they aren't making money from the Apple TV box, so in that regard that's a non-argument. In the high numbers they are selling new products at lately, combined with the small product line they usually make, when launching a new product (family). I.E. they make one phone in two colors and storage sizes - essentially one model. One TV model, or even two would allow them to keep production costs "relatively" low, and squeeze out a larger profit than they do per Apple TV (box) sold. They could start it off at "more" premium prices, they'd get the takers, while bringing costs down over time (and maybe adding another model or not). And they could continue (and likely would) to sell the Apple TV (box) for those who already have a new TV, or cannot afford Apple's one.
We had this round before, Apple will not get by with only one or two models. After our last round I went to my local Fry's (a big box electronics store - the only kind of place selling TVs anymore) and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models. To compete Apple will have to match or most people will go to the model that comes closest to meeting their needs. (Or decor.)
As for the AppleTV, Apple has alot less money tied up in it then they would with a television (I would guess a tenth of the amount) and can afford to wait. A television would put them at a much bigger risk and need for a quicker return than they need for their current AppleTV.
and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models. To compete Apple will have to match or most people will go to the model that comes closest to meeting their needs.
True,
Plus on top of that Apple has to figure out what segment they are after. If it is the hi-end, then they have to offer models on the 42" to up 60" plus, where the whole idea of AIO TV makes even less sense.
Then the other segment is the smaller flat panels, where the idea of AIO is more acceptable.
Also consider that people tend to keep their TVs for more time than they would be replacing computers or an AppleTV box. I had my Sony CRT for 12 years and I just replace it for a Kuro Pioneer 60". I will keep that display easily for more than 5 years. So, the last thing I would like to have is a piece of hardware built-in like an AppleTV that can be outdate in two years at the most.
So, the AIO for the hi-end is definately not a feasible option. Then the option left is the low-end. Is Apple really after that?
Keep in mind Apple charges premium prices for their goods, so if they indeed come up with a TV it will cost a lot and probably would be geared more towards the hi-end, I would think.
We had this round before, Apple will not get by with only one or two models. After our last round I went to my local Fry's (a big box electronics store - the only kind of place selling TVs anymore) and counted at least 10 TV models on display from every manufacture. Repeat, that is every manufacture being shown had at least 10 models.
And this differs from the number of phones each other phone-maker has how?