I would agree with you - but that's exactly what many said about Apple entering the cell phone market. Given the success the iPhone has had, it wouldn't be all that crazy to enter the TV market. However, the time may not be right yet, especially given current economic issues. I am certain there is a strategy to do it when the time is right. My guess is that the AppleTV was really testing the waters and that the endgame is an HDTV with all its features.
I cannot see what Apple has done with computers or mobile phone can be compared to the TV. With computers and phones Apple built a unique and expandable platform with an customized OS and developer tools. There is no need for any of this with a television.
The only real differentiators with televisions are price and picture quality. The menu UI isn't that great on most TV's but I don't see why people would care that much about the menu UI to make an Apple TV successful.
My point being, if Blu-Ray is a "niche" at 13% of DVD sales, then downloadable movie sales aren't even on the map. And no one was giving away copies of Iron Man on Blu-Ray to fudge the numbers, as you seem to imply.
True enough downloadable video is in a fledgling state right now. But its future growth curve will be a lot better than Blu-ray's future sales.
In July Youtube recorded 5 billion downloads. In time this will translate into movies and television.
This article is utterly useless, not so much because it contains no factual information, as because the conclusions for the prospects of Apple sucessfully marketing an HDTV with Apple TV built in are based on contrived, nonsensical logic.
The article assumes that the incremental cost of adding Apple TV functionality to an HDTV would be essentially the same as the standalone cost of the Apple TV product. In reality, that incremental cost is likely to be only a fraction of the cost of the standalone product. The article argues that it would make more sense for Apple to partner up with another TV manufacturer to incorporate Apple TV functionality into their TV. Such partnerships might make sense, but even if so, they would not constitute a valid argument against such a TV carring the Apple brand, which would offer several advantages in its own right. The article even argues that it would make more sense to sell the Apple TV as standalone accessories for other brands of TVs. That wouldn't accomplish anything at all, and it doesn't offer any cost savings as compared to Apple TV functionality being incorporated within the TV.
All in all, this article just does not make a whit of sense, and it seems more like something that some naive pundit would write as a contribution to this forum than an article that would be put out by AppleInsider. Virtually none of it is factually correct, and the conjecture is overtly lacking a semblence of logic.
The potential problems of Apple making a TV are valid. The only reason I can see taking such a strong stance is because you want Apple to make a television. Even though its true televisions are a commodity market and their isn't much new or compelling Apple would have to offer.
I think the article clearly demonstrates why Apple should not venture on doing a HDTV.
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
Mac = general purpose computer
MacBook = general purpose portable computer
iPod = entertainment specific portable computer
iPhone = communication specific portable computer
AppleTV = entertainment specific computer
Putting the screen into the Apple TV makes it a more integrated solution.
More and more devices are converging with the computer.
No company is better equipped to develop a modern "TV" than Apple.
As we all know XBox, PS3, and Wii sell at a loss, below manufacturing and distribution costs. They make their money from games and game developers.
ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve.
I know this is off-topic, but the Wii is sold at a profit, but is the only one of the three that is. It's not a large one, but it is sold above cost.
Back to the subject, I can see Apple doing well in the HDTV market. They would obviously not compete with the lower-end brands, but with the likes of Pioneer in the plasmas and Sony in the LCD's. Both have been able to distinguish themselves from competition, and I think Apple can do the same.
All the arguments people have of not being able to distinguish brands in the HDTV market is just as true in the cell phone market, or was, until Apple entered the fold. Apple has a way to make their products different, and I think making an HDTV with a removable hard drive for AppleTV and/or DVR functionality would be pretty cool.
Also, and this is a big point, let's not forget the power of the Apple logo. To this day, I still believe the iPhone would not have been as successful, even with all the revolutionary aspects of it, had it not had that little piece of fruit stamped on the back of it.
All the arguments people have of not being able to distinguish brands in the HDTV market is just as true in the cell phone market, or was, until Apple entered the fold. Apple has a way to make their products different, and I think making an HDTV with a removable hard drive for AppleTV and/or DVR functionality would be pretty cool.
Seeing that nearly all of the major computer manufacturers have attempted to combine computers and televisions. People for the most part have not been very receptive to this combination.
From what we've seen people don't want to deal with hardware and software on a television. They just want the television to be a television with as little effort from the user as possible.
No company is better equipped to develop a modern "TV" than Apple.[/QUOTE]
Johnny,
While I agreed somewhat with your statement above you have to take in consideration that the current state the HDTV market means very low profit margins.
Also most of manufactures offer great products right now, but they are still struggling to make it. Some are outsourcing, merging and re-structuring in order to survive.
My point is while Apple could make a sophisticate and nice HDTV, I don't think offering just a AppleTV built-in would be revolutionary and increase ten-fold sales of an HDTV set like they did with the iPhone.
Before Apple venture into making a television, they have to nail the AppleTV box into something that the consumer really wants and craves and see potential to buy it to utilize with iTunes store, etc. Once this product have mass appeal like the iPod, iPhone, etc, we might be able to see it expanding their presence into things like in a tv set.
The current displays out there are great in terms of picture quality. The UI and the way people interact and how they get content is the frontier Apple should go after, bring their easy to use approach and challenge the norm. They can do that with the stand alone AppleTV box and I hope they will do.
Seeing that nearly all of the major computer manufacturers have attempted to combine computers and televisions. People for the most part have not been very receptive to this combination.
From what we've seen people don't want to deal with hardware and software on a television. They just want the television to be a television with as little effort from the user as possible.
I'm not saying that a computer and television combo would be wise, but I have the confidence that if Apple ever did make an HDTV, they would do it right. I agree with you that making a television as hassle-free as possible is the ideal way to do it, but hasn't that been Apple's goal with everything they've made, to make it as hassle-free as possible? Combining an AppleTV/DVR with your HDTV would cut out potentially two more devices and cables, would cut down on the headaches of people having to set up even more things and make sure everything is connected right, and would give Apple the edge that they seem to create in every other market. A lot of people didn't think they needed or wanted a phone that could get on the internet (among other things) until Apple came around and did it right. I'm not saying it's as easy with televisions, but Apple's track record of making new, innovative, and desirable products is hard to ignore, and I believe they could be able to do it in a market that is saturated, but not nearly as much as cell phones are.
Apple will not start selling HD monitors. That's a commodity market, already saturated by companies with WAY more experience and focus than Apple. Takes up LOTs of warehouse space which Apple doesn't have in its retail chain.
They REALLY will not start selling Monitors with AppleTVs built in.
The market for all-in-one TVs with built-in everything died years ago, and I don't see anyone who wants to have their digital technology (DVR, DVD, etc) tied to their monitor. Even cable-cards have died a quiet death.
I never said anything about download-able movies, and your original comment that I replied to, was a defence of the sales figures for BluRay. I was pointing out the convoluted logic of your remarks and how they kind of don't make sense. I implied the possibility of that and reflected on the general inaccuracy of the kinds of numbers you were quoting.
You haven't actually refuted me on that either, you just made another hyperbolic statement about how "no-one" does (or did) that, whereas I at least pointed to historical examples of such practices being rampant. Mine was a speculative remark based on past practice and history, your reply was the rhetorical equivalent of "Oh Yeah?"
It seems at this point that my argument is better supported than yours.
I provided links to back up my claims, while you have provided nothing to support your belief that those claims are inaccurate, beyond your insistence that they could be and thusly should be disregarded entirely. Show me a link that refutes Blu-Ray's share of DVD sales, or a story about truckloads of Iron Man Blu-Ray's being distributed freely. Please.
Insisting that the numbers are rigged doesn't make it so; you need proof. And saying that one time some other movie was given away is not proof.
The consumer does not care it Sony etc is selling the device at a loss, they just see the price, and I can't justify the price (of the 40GB or 160GB) ATV, since my PS3 does the functions of a ATV, plus a hell of a lot more for less money.
I don't think we spoke about price justification; we discussed overpricing.
Sounds like your argument is solely based on the expectation that Apple should sell at a loss so that you can feel it's right-priced.
If you are buying a PS3 only for BD movies, you are getting a great product and nobody argues that point.
If you are using it for gaming as well as most people do, you are paying a whole lot more for your PS3, you just don't seem to know it.
AppleTV provides nominal support for 1080i. Since the output resolution is offered, it is supported and the statement is correct.
AppleTV doesn't have a display where you could apply the phrase "native resolution", any content that doesn't match the selected output resolution will be scaled.
There are 3 issues here
1) the maximum quality video that the AppleTV can play (720p25)
2a) the maximum output resolution sent to the TV (1080i60)
2b) the input the TVs can accept (usually up to 1080i60 on plasma)
3) the native resolution of the TV screen (usually 480p, 720p, or 1080p)
On the AppleTV - people confuse 1 & 2a. The AppleTV can not play a 1080 movie, it's not capable of it.
Likewise, on TVs people have confused 2b & 3. Plasmas were advertising themselves as 1080i even if they were only 480p TVs. Fortunately TV makers have been forced to make the true resolution clear. The give away phrase is "1080i" on a Plasma - Plasmas can NOT be be natively "interlaced".... so if it says 1080i it's just the input accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zygoat
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
No he was right. The 1080i60 replaces half the lines every 1/60th of a second, which can work great on a regular old cathode ray tube. But a plasma screen can't show just 1/60th of the lines, so when half the lines are replaced it has to continue showing the other half of the lines which come from a picture 1/60th of a second ago. If the picture hasn't moved much, those other lines fit almost perfectly. But in fast motion scenes they don't, and you get a weird series of horizontal lines where the picture is moving (called the 'combing' effect).
So 720p30 would refresh less often than 1080i60, but each picture would be very clear (clearer than the higher resolution 1080 with combing effects). Of course when it's broadcast at 720p60 the frame rate is matched.
Oh, 2 other sources of confusion
1) when 1080i refreshes HALF the lines 60 times a second, most times that's referred to as 1080i60. But every now and then I see an article that calls that 1080i30... due to measuring whole frames rather than every second line (aka fields).
2) when it comes to movies, it's a 24 frame movie that is then converted into 1080i60... but it's done in a way so that TVs can easily convert it back to 1080p24. So for movies, the interlaced vs progressive differences disappear, as do the 60 frames a second. It's 720p24 vs 1080p24... and easy to say which is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
A lot of TVs simply halve the resolution for fast moving TV scenes. Some estimate which sections of the picture are moving fast and halve that part of the picture's resolution, while for the still sections they combine the previous field. There are several ways of converting interlaced to show on plasma/lcd screens - and the latest technology for estimating every 2nd line is really impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe
The reason why some claim that 720p is better than 1080i for sports is because there are sometimes increased compression artifacts in 1080i due to the higher bandwidth required ... and/or [edit] the better frame rate with 720p60.
No... mainly it's the combing effects. Remember also that 1080i60 broadcasts the same number of pixels as 720p60 (though progressive compresses a little better). 720p30 has half as many pixels of course since it has half the frames - but since MPEG4 compression encodes what has changed since the last frame, each frame in 720p30 has changed more than when there are twice as many frames.
It's not at all simple this stuff.
Oh another factor to make things more confusing
3) the latest compression schemes are starting to put LESS effort into the fast moving scenes and MORE into the still sections, which goes against what's been done for years. The theory is that you can't tell how good the quality is in fast moving sections anyway, so make the still sections look STUNNING and people will rate the whole picture as better quality. This is kinda similar to what better 1080p Plasmas already do with 1080i as I described above. Of course, if you pause a fast scene you'll see that the detail isn't there... but the comparisons of paused fast motion scenes miss the point of this compression.
(I have to say I haven't watched this type of compression knowingly. I did once watch a 4Mbps 720p24 film of people walking in a snow storm and it was terrible, it couldn't handle all the detail of the snow... it would have looked far better if they'd dropped the resolution to 320p24 for those scenes!)
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
Hmmm... yes and no. At a glance it is expensive, but if you line up all the HD options it starts to fit quite well.
The "for what it does" comment is the most important bit. I don't have a large sample - but people I know who think the AppleTV isn't worth it have been incredibly surprised at 'what it does' once they use it for a short while. And I think half the critics would be silenced if Apple just supported divx files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
WHAT! Name a cheaper media extender? For $229 you get 802.11n, 100BASE-T (wish it was 1000BASE-T), 40GB HDD, 1GHz Intel CPU, 256MB DDR2 RAM, Nvidia 7300, HDMI 1.3, Component, analog and optical audio. You can also buy and rent audio and video right from the device which makes it very convenient.
Yeah, for it's hardware it's well priced. But above what many people want to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishMac
I wonder if the rumors about the 'Brick' have mistakenly referred to a laptop case production process. The 'Brick' could be a revamped Apple TV, take 3 so to speak. Pure speculation of course but then so is this article.
I think it would be safer for Apple to beef up the ATV than go into the HDTV market.
Yeah, that would be nice. The rumours of the graphics chips going into the latest iPhones showed that Apple's partners already produce portable graphics chips that can natively output HDTV to TVs.
What if Apple uses the iPhone as the basis for the next AppleTV?
ie: the iPhone ARM cpu, a better graphics decoder, and the iPhone OS - of course no touch screen, no battery, and may as well use a desktop hard disk. I'm reasonably sure they could pull it off - would it save money though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
If I were Apple...
AppleTV upgrade to Via C7 Nano 2.0ghz running OS X. This would give them the SSE3/4 codes and smooth scaling HD Content even in 1080i/p resolution. It also reduces the power cunsumption from the Pentium M by 2/3rds. Reduced heat and 1 board controller chip would reduce costs as well as increase speed and reduce room in the box itself. Via's Padlock encryption could easily be used for Apple OS X as well. C7 Nano is NOT available outside of prototypes yet but in testing compared to the Intel Atom 330 (dual core 1.6ghz) it outperformed it 4:1 in video playback of HD content and used the same if not less power. It's also the first 64bit mini-cpu with a TDP below 5w. And they have plans for a dual core 11mmx11mm chip for 2nd half of 2009!
Something like that is also worth considering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
The ONLY way to accelerate AppleTV sales is to add a Tuner at the very least. PVR would be cool too.
Screens... Anything from Panasonic would be Best. But I think we'll see Apple partner with 3rd party companies to integrate AppleTV into the TV's themselves. Apple would supply the boards and HD's, TV companies would build these into the sets. So you would see 50" LCD 1080i TV's NOW with integrated AppleTV!
It's not the only way
Apple could simply add AVI/DivX playback to the ATV and a lot of people would be more interested. Nice up-sell to HDTV purchases too, but I suspect the show producers wouldn't see it that way.
Or perhaps they could partner with TiVo... use the AppleTV to watch shows recorded on a TiVo somewhere else in your house.
Or they could work as a "virtual PVR"... choose what you want to 'record', Apple records it centrally for you, and downloads it to your AppleTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The only real differentiators with televisions are price and picture quality. The menu UI isn't that great on most TV's but I don't see why people would care that much about the menu UI to make an Apple TV successful.
The only current differentiators are price and picture quality. But that's the point isn't it? - can Apple create a 3rd differentiator that NO-ONE else has even considered? If Apple creates an interaction method that makes the TV easier to use it'd be appealing to some people. A basic example, I'd say 1/3 of plasma screens are set to the wrong aspect ratio (all shots are stretched). There's room for something there - though yeah I'm not sure whether it's enough room for Apple to play in. Perhaps there's value where Apple can merge the regular TV experience with online options.
I do think that an Integrated AppleTV+screen is likely to have the appleTV technology outdated far earlier than the screen itself, the value of integration would depend on the extra cost up front and future upgrade options.
I can see Apple doing well in the HDTV market. They would obviously not compete with the lower-end brands, but with the likes of Pioneer in the plasmas and Sony in the LCD's. Both have been able to distinguish themselves from competition, and I think Apple can do the same.
Last time I checked, Apple doesn't exactly compete with the Dell computers that sell for $349, so even in computers they can't compete with everyone
I know this is off-topic, but the Wii is sold at a profit, but is the only one of the three that is. It's not a large one, but it is sold above cost.
Considering the Wii has been on the market for nearly 2 years with no price cuts (correct?), the profits line would be pretty substantial...
And FYI, the 360 has been making dough for quite awhile now; perhaps not after the recent price drops, but even then the loss would be tiny, and I'd still be surprised if it was any.
Even after just 1 year on the market the manufacturing cost had dropped nearly 40%, bringing them $70+ profit at a retail price of $399. Add another 2 years of manufacturing, and retailing at $299, I imagine the profit is still double digits.
True enough downloadable video is in a fledgling state right now. But its future growth curve will be a lot better than Blu-ray's future sales.
Not if the internet providers have anything to do with it; Comcast is currently implementing 250GB caps, and other providers are expected to follow suit. That's only enough bandwidth for six Blu-Ray-quality movies. I rent no less than eight a month from Netflix.
Last time I checked, Apple doesn't exactly compete with the Dell computers that sell for $349, so even in computers they can't compete with everyone
If you had read my earlier post, I had said that they would be competing with the Pioneers and the Sony's of the TV world. I never said they would compete with everybody, just like the iPhone doesn't, but that they would be able to differentiate themselves and be successful. Not in the lower bracket, but in the high-end market (read: profitable market)
Considering the Wii has been on the market for nearly 2 years with no price cuts (correct?), the profits line would be pretty substantial...
And FYI, the 360 has been making dough for quite awhile now; perhaps not after the recent price drops, but even then the loss would be tiny, and I'd still be surprised if it was any.
Even after just 1 year on the market the manufacturing cost had dropped nearly 40%, bringing them $70+ profit at a retail price of $399. Add another 2 years of manufacturing, and retailing at $299, I imagine the profit is still double digits.
You are correct, and I stand corrected. It was my mistake to look at information about launch days for each system instead of considering the current market. At the time of each system's launch, the Wii was the only one being sold above cost, but you are correct, that has drastically changed as component pricing has gone down. My mistake.
Comments
yeah, right...
I know, I agree.
Cheers bro
The HDTV market is no different that computers.
.
I would agree with you - but that's exactly what many said about Apple entering the cell phone market. Given the success the iPhone has had, it wouldn't be all that crazy to enter the TV market. However, the time may not be right yet, especially given current economic issues. I am certain there is a strategy to do it when the time is right. My guess is that the AppleTV was really testing the waters and that the endgame is an HDTV with all its features.
I cannot see what Apple has done with computers or mobile phone can be compared to the TV. With computers and phones Apple built a unique and expandable platform with an customized OS and developer tools. There is no need for any of this with a television.
The only real differentiators with televisions are price and picture quality. The menu UI isn't that great on most TV's but I don't see why people would care that much about the menu UI to make an Apple TV successful.
My point being, if Blu-Ray is a "niche" at 13% of DVD sales, then downloadable movie sales aren't even on the map. And no one was giving away copies of Iron Man on Blu-Ray to fudge the numbers, as you seem to imply.
True enough downloadable video is in a fledgling state right now. But its future growth curve will be a lot better than Blu-ray's future sales.
In July Youtube recorded 5 billion downloads. In time this will translate into movies and television.
This article is utterly useless, not so much because it contains no factual information, as because the conclusions for the prospects of Apple sucessfully marketing an HDTV with Apple TV built in are based on contrived, nonsensical logic.
The article assumes that the incremental cost of adding Apple TV functionality to an HDTV would be essentially the same as the standalone cost of the Apple TV product. In reality, that incremental cost is likely to be only a fraction of the cost of the standalone product. The article argues that it would make more sense for Apple to partner up with another TV manufacturer to incorporate Apple TV functionality into their TV. Such partnerships might make sense, but even if so, they would not constitute a valid argument against such a TV carring the Apple brand, which would offer several advantages in its own right. The article even argues that it would make more sense to sell the Apple TV as standalone accessories for other brands of TVs. That wouldn't accomplish anything at all, and it doesn't offer any cost savings as compared to Apple TV functionality being incorporated within the TV.
All in all, this article just does not make a whit of sense, and it seems more like something that some naive pundit would write as a contribution to this forum than an article that would be put out by AppleInsider. Virtually none of it is factually correct, and the conjecture is overtly lacking a semblence of logic.
The potential problems of Apple making a TV are valid. The only reason I can see taking such a strong stance is because you want Apple to make a television. Even though its true televisions are a commodity market and their isn't much new or compelling Apple would have to offer.
I think the article clearly demonstrates why Apple should not venture on doing a HDTV.
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
Mac = general purpose computer
MacBook = general purpose portable computer
iPod = entertainment specific portable computer
iPhone = communication specific portable computer
AppleTV = entertainment specific computer
Putting the screen into the Apple TV makes it a more integrated solution.
More and more devices are converging with the computer.
No company is better equipped to develop a modern "TV" than Apple.
As we all know XBox, PS3, and Wii sell at a loss, below manufacturing and distribution costs. They make their money from games and game developers.
ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve.
I know this is off-topic, but the Wii is sold at a profit, but is the only one of the three that is. It's not a large one, but it is sold above cost.
Back to the subject, I can see Apple doing well in the HDTV market. They would obviously not compete with the lower-end brands, but with the likes of Pioneer in the plasmas and Sony in the LCD's. Both have been able to distinguish themselves from competition, and I think Apple can do the same.
All the arguments people have of not being able to distinguish brands in the HDTV market is just as true in the cell phone market, or was, until Apple entered the fold. Apple has a way to make their products different, and I think making an HDTV with a removable hard drive for AppleTV and/or DVR functionality would be pretty cool.
Also, and this is a big point, let's not forget the power of the Apple logo. To this day, I still believe the iPhone would not have been as successful, even with all the revolutionary aspects of it, had it not had that little piece of fruit stamped on the back of it.
All the arguments people have of not being able to distinguish brands in the HDTV market is just as true in the cell phone market, or was, until Apple entered the fold. Apple has a way to make their products different, and I think making an HDTV with a removable hard drive for AppleTV and/or DVR functionality would be pretty cool.
Seeing that nearly all of the major computer manufacturers have attempted to combine computers and televisions. People for the most part have not been very receptive to this combination.
From what we've seen people don't want to deal with hardware and software on a television. They just want the television to be a television with as little effort from the user as possible.
No company is better equipped to develop a modern "TV" than Apple.[/QUOTE]
Johnny,
While I agreed somewhat with your statement above you have to take in consideration that the current state the HDTV market means very low profit margins.
Also most of manufactures offer great products right now, but they are still struggling to make it. Some are outsourcing, merging and re-structuring in order to survive.
My point is while Apple could make a sophisticate and nice HDTV, I don't think offering just a AppleTV built-in would be revolutionary and increase ten-fold sales of an HDTV set like they did with the iPhone.
Before Apple venture into making a television, they have to nail the AppleTV box into something that the consumer really wants and craves and see potential to buy it to utilize with iTunes store, etc. Once this product have mass appeal like the iPod, iPhone, etc, we might be able to see it expanding their presence into things like in a tv set.
The current displays out there are great in terms of picture quality. The UI and the way people interact and how they get content is the frontier Apple should go after, bring their easy to use approach and challenge the norm. They can do that with the stand alone AppleTV box and I hope they will do.
my 2 cents.
Seeing that nearly all of the major computer manufacturers have attempted to combine computers and televisions. People for the most part have not been very receptive to this combination.
From what we've seen people don't want to deal with hardware and software on a television. They just want the television to be a television with as little effort from the user as possible.
I'm not saying that a computer and television combo would be wise, but I have the confidence that if Apple ever did make an HDTV, they would do it right. I agree with you that making a television as hassle-free as possible is the ideal way to do it, but hasn't that been Apple's goal with everything they've made, to make it as hassle-free as possible? Combining an AppleTV/DVR with your HDTV would cut out potentially two more devices and cables, would cut down on the headaches of people having to set up even more things and make sure everything is connected right, and would give Apple the edge that they seem to create in every other market. A lot of people didn't think they needed or wanted a phone that could get on the internet (among other things) until Apple came around and did it right. I'm not saying it's as easy with televisions, but Apple's track record of making new, innovative, and desirable products is hard to ignore, and I believe they could be able to do it in a market that is saturated, but not nearly as much as cell phones are.
Apple will not start selling HD monitors. That's a commodity market, already saturated by companies with WAY more experience and focus than Apple. Takes up LOTs of warehouse space which Apple doesn't have in its retail chain.
They REALLY will not start selling Monitors with AppleTVs built in.
The market for all-in-one TVs with built-in everything died years ago, and I don't see anyone who wants to have their digital technology (DVR, DVD, etc) tied to their monitor. Even cable-cards have died a quiet death.
marginal market.
I never said anything about download-able movies, and your original comment that I replied to, was a defence of the sales figures for BluRay. I was pointing out the convoluted logic of your remarks and how they kind of don't make sense. I implied the possibility of that and reflected on the general inaccuracy of the kinds of numbers you were quoting.
You haven't actually refuted me on that either, you just made another hyperbolic statement about how "no-one" does (or did) that, whereas I at least pointed to historical examples of such practices being rampant. Mine was a speculative remark based on past practice and history, your reply was the rhetorical equivalent of "Oh Yeah?"
It seems at this point that my argument is better supported than yours.
I provided links to back up my claims, while you have provided nothing to support your belief that those claims are inaccurate, beyond your insistence that they could be and thusly should be disregarded entirely. Show me a link that refutes Blu-Ray's share of DVD sales, or a story about truckloads of Iron Man Blu-Ray's being distributed freely. Please.
Insisting that the numbers are rigged doesn't make it so; you need proof. And saying that one time some other movie was given away is not proof.
Why would the 40GB ATV compare to the 80GB PS3?
The consumer does not care it Sony etc is selling the device at a loss, they just see the price, and I can't justify the price (of the 40GB or 160GB) ATV, since my PS3 does the functions of a ATV, plus a hell of a lot more for less money.
I don't think we spoke about price justification; we discussed overpricing.
Sounds like your argument is solely based on the expectation that Apple should sell at a loss so that you can feel it's right-priced.
If you are buying a PS3 only for BD movies, you are getting a great product and nobody argues that point.
If you are using it for gaming as well as most people do, you are paying a whole lot more for your PS3, you just don't seem to know it.
There typically is no free lunch in retail...
AppleTV provides nominal support for 1080i. Since the output resolution is offered, it is supported and the statement is correct.
AppleTV doesn't have a display where you could apply the phrase "native resolution", any content that doesn't match the selected output resolution will be scaled.
There are 3 issues here
1) the maximum quality video that the AppleTV can play (720p25)
2a) the maximum output resolution sent to the TV (1080i60)
2b) the input the TVs can accept (usually up to 1080i60 on plasma)
3) the native resolution of the TV screen (usually 480p, 720p, or 1080p)
On the AppleTV - people confuse 1 & 2a. The AppleTV can not play a 1080 movie, it's not capable of it.
Likewise, on TVs people have confused 2b & 3. Plasmas were advertising themselves as 1080i even if they were only 480p TVs. Fortunately TV makers have been forced to make the true resolution clear. The give away phrase is "1080i" on a Plasma - Plasmas can NOT be be natively "interlaced".... so if it says 1080i it's just the input accepted.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
No he was right. The 1080i60 replaces half the lines every 1/60th of a second, which can work great on a regular old cathode ray tube. But a plasma screen can't show just 1/60th of the lines, so when half the lines are replaced it has to continue showing the other half of the lines which come from a picture 1/60th of a second ago. If the picture hasn't moved much, those other lines fit almost perfectly. But in fast motion scenes they don't, and you get a weird series of horizontal lines where the picture is moving (called the 'combing' effect).
So 720p30 would refresh less often than 1080i60, but each picture would be very clear (clearer than the higher resolution 1080 with combing effects). Of course when it's broadcast at 720p60 the frame rate is matched.
Oh, 2 other sources of confusion
1) when 1080i refreshes HALF the lines 60 times a second, most times that's referred to as 1080i60. But every now and then I see an article that calls that 1080i30... due to measuring whole frames rather than every second line (aka fields).
2) when it comes to movies, it's a 24 frame movie that is then converted into 1080i60... but it's done in a way so that TVs can easily convert it back to 1080p24. So for movies, the interlaced vs progressive differences disappear, as do the 60 frames a second. It's 720p24 vs 1080p24... and easy to say which is better.
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
A lot of TVs simply halve the resolution for fast moving TV scenes. Some estimate which sections of the picture are moving fast and halve that part of the picture's resolution, while for the still sections they combine the previous field. There are several ways of converting interlaced to show on plasma/lcd screens - and the latest technology for estimating every 2nd line is really impressive.
The reason why some claim that 720p is better than 1080i for sports is because there are sometimes increased compression artifacts in 1080i due to the higher bandwidth required ... and/or [edit] the better frame rate with 720p60.
No... mainly it's the combing effects. Remember also that 1080i60 broadcasts the same number of pixels as 720p60 (though progressive compresses a little better). 720p30 has half as many pixels of course since it has half the frames - but since MPEG4 compression encodes what has changed since the last frame, each frame in 720p30 has changed more than when there are twice as many frames.
It's not at all simple this stuff.
Oh another factor to make things more confusing
3) the latest compression schemes are starting to put LESS effort into the fast moving scenes and MORE into the still sections, which goes against what's been done for years. The theory is that you can't tell how good the quality is in fast moving sections anyway, so make the still sections look STUNNING and people will rate the whole picture as better quality. This is kinda similar to what better 1080p Plasmas already do with 1080i as I described above. Of course, if you pause a fast scene you'll see that the detail isn't there... but the comparisons of paused fast motion scenes miss the point of this compression.
(I have to say I haven't watched this type of compression knowingly. I did once watch a 4Mbps 720p24 film of people walking in a snow storm and it was terrible, it couldn't handle all the detail of the snow... it would have looked far better if they'd dropped the resolution to 320p24 for those scenes!)
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
Hmmm... yes and no. At a glance it is expensive, but if you line up all the HD options it starts to fit quite well.
The "for what it does" comment is the most important bit. I don't have a large sample - but people I know who think the AppleTV isn't worth it have been incredibly surprised at 'what it does' once they use it for a short while. And I think half the critics would be silenced if Apple just supported divx files.
WHAT! Name a cheaper media extender? For $229 you get 802.11n, 100BASE-T (wish it was 1000BASE-T), 40GB HDD, 1GHz Intel CPU, 256MB DDR2 RAM, Nvidia 7300, HDMI 1.3, Component, analog and optical audio. You can also buy and rent audio and video right from the device which makes it very convenient.
Yeah, for it's hardware it's well priced. But above what many people want to pay.
I wonder if the rumors about the 'Brick' have mistakenly referred to a laptop case production process. The 'Brick' could be a revamped Apple TV, take 3 so to speak. Pure speculation of course but then so is this article.
I think it would be safer for Apple to beef up the ATV than go into the HDTV market.
Yeah, that would be nice. The rumours of the graphics chips going into the latest iPhones showed that Apple's partners already produce portable graphics chips that can natively output HDTV to TVs.
What if Apple uses the iPhone as the basis for the next AppleTV?
ie: the iPhone ARM cpu, a better graphics decoder, and the iPhone OS - of course no touch screen, no battery, and may as well use a desktop hard disk. I'm reasonably sure they could pull it off - would it save money though?
If I were Apple...
AppleTV upgrade to Via C7 Nano 2.0ghz running OS X. This would give them the SSE3/4 codes and smooth scaling HD Content even in 1080i/p resolution. It also reduces the power cunsumption from the Pentium M by 2/3rds. Reduced heat and 1 board controller chip would reduce costs as well as increase speed and reduce room in the box itself. Via's Padlock encryption could easily be used for Apple OS X as well. C7 Nano is NOT available outside of prototypes yet but in testing compared to the Intel Atom 330 (dual core 1.6ghz) it outperformed it 4:1 in video playback of HD content and used the same if not less power. It's also the first 64bit mini-cpu with a TDP below 5w. And they have plans for a dual core 11mmx11mm chip for 2nd half of 2009!
Something like that is also worth considering.
The ONLY way to accelerate AppleTV sales is to add a Tuner at the very least. PVR would be cool too.
Screens... Anything from Panasonic would be Best. But I think we'll see Apple partner with 3rd party companies to integrate AppleTV into the TV's themselves. Apple would supply the boards and HD's, TV companies would build these into the sets. So you would see 50" LCD 1080i TV's NOW with integrated AppleTV!
It's not the only way
Apple could simply add AVI/DivX playback to the ATV and a lot of people would be more interested. Nice up-sell to HDTV purchases too, but I suspect the show producers wouldn't see it that way.
Or perhaps they could partner with TiVo... use the AppleTV to watch shows recorded on a TiVo somewhere else in your house.
Or they could work as a "virtual PVR"... choose what you want to 'record', Apple records it centrally for you, and downloads it to your AppleTV.
The only real differentiators with televisions are price and picture quality. The menu UI isn't that great on most TV's but I don't see why people would care that much about the menu UI to make an Apple TV successful.
The only current differentiators are price and picture quality. But that's the point isn't it? - can Apple create a 3rd differentiator that NO-ONE else has even considered? If Apple creates an interaction method that makes the TV easier to use it'd be appealing to some people. A basic example, I'd say 1/3 of plasma screens are set to the wrong aspect ratio (all shots are stretched). There's room for something there - though yeah I'm not sure whether it's enough room for Apple to play in. Perhaps there's value where Apple can merge the regular TV experience with online options.
I do think that an Integrated AppleTV+screen is likely to have the appleTV technology outdated far earlier than the screen itself, the value of integration would depend on the extra cost up front and future upgrade options.
I can see Apple doing well in the HDTV market. They would obviously not compete with the lower-end brands, but with the likes of Pioneer in the plasmas and Sony in the LCD's. Both have been able to distinguish themselves from competition, and I think Apple can do the same.
Last time I checked, Apple doesn't exactly compete with the Dell computers that sell for $349, so even in computers they can't compete with everyone
I know this is off-topic, but the Wii is sold at a profit, but is the only one of the three that is. It's not a large one, but it is sold above cost.
Considering the Wii has been on the market for nearly 2 years with no price cuts (correct?), the profits line would be pretty substantial...
And FYI, the 360 has been making dough for quite awhile now; perhaps not after the recent price drops, but even then the loss would be tiny, and I'd still be surprised if it was any.
Quick google: http://www.techspot.com/news/23612-m...-hardware.html
Even after just 1 year on the market the manufacturing cost had dropped nearly 40%, bringing them $70+ profit at a retail price of $399. Add another 2 years of manufacturing, and retailing at $299, I imagine the profit is still double digits.
True enough downloadable video is in a fledgling state right now. But its future growth curve will be a lot better than Blu-ray's future sales.
Not if the internet providers have anything to do with it; Comcast is currently implementing 250GB caps, and other providers are expected to follow suit. That's only enough bandwidth for six Blu-Ray-quality movies. I rent no less than eight a month from Netflix.
Last time I checked, Apple doesn't exactly compete with the Dell computers that sell for $349, so even in computers they can't compete with everyone
If you had read my earlier post, I had said that they would be competing with the Pioneers and the Sony's of the TV world. I never said they would compete with everybody, just like the iPhone doesn't, but that they would be able to differentiate themselves and be successful. Not in the lower bracket, but in the high-end market (read: profitable market)
Considering the Wii has been on the market for nearly 2 years with no price cuts (correct?), the profits line would be pretty substantial...
And FYI, the 360 has been making dough for quite awhile now; perhaps not after the recent price drops, but even then the loss would be tiny, and I'd still be surprised if it was any.
Quick google: http://www.techspot.com/news/23612-m...-hardware.html
Even after just 1 year on the market the manufacturing cost had dropped nearly 40%, bringing them $70+ profit at a retail price of $399. Add another 2 years of manufacturing, and retailing at $299, I imagine the profit is still double digits.
You are correct, and I stand corrected. It was my mistake to look at information about launch days for each system instead of considering the current market. At the time of each system's launch, the Wii was the only one being sold above cost, but you are correct, that has drastically changed as component pricing has gone down. My mistake.