This could be interesting, could use a good flat screen for the bedroom, and depending on the resolution and such, a new monitor would be nice as well.
If they did this, would they keep selling the Apple TV standalone?
Their TV setup would reflect their computer lineup if they did that: standalone = Mini, actual TV = iMac.
I think it would be wise of them to go for the low end LCD HDTV market vs the high end plasma etc.
This price range is about £200-600 (32"-42").
The thing is though, if they sell the standalone for £199 and you can already buy a TV for around that price, will people buy a TV with the ATV inside for twice the price?
If it had PVR functionality I would say yes. The only way the ATV will be an attractive add-on is via a subscription model similar to a TV provider but I don't see that happening.
The way providers keep costs down is ridiculous amounts of advertising. Apple won't be prepared to do that so their prices will be higher.
TV networks also get exclusive shows or get shows earlier, which means most/all of the stuff on Apple's network is old content. This is still good *if* you have a big archive of old shows. Apple don't. They have a very small fraction of what competitors offer.
So rather than weigh up what Apple will and won't do - history shows that Apple are prepared to venture into a number of areas and they are already in the TV market - I would still say this won't be a successful venture (just like the standalone box) until they become much more price and feature competitive in this area.
I would certainly like to see them turn the standalone box into a more competitive device first before sealing it inside a TV unit.
I think it would be wise of them to go for the low end LCD HDTV market vs the high end plasma etc.
....
Plasma, high end? Surely, you jest. Plasma displays are cheaper than LCD displays of equal size. They are also consume more energy, weigh more, and are advancing more slowly.
To the point of this thread--I am skeptical. The TV market is a commodity market. The dominant seller in the USA is Vizio, a virtual company It sells its product cheap. As described by the C-NET.co.uk post, Apple's product would have to be expensive. Unlike the other markets in which Apple competes, the TV sets are highly constrained by legal standards. What is more, there are several standards and combinations of standards. Any differentiation of product will have to be in addition to the standards mandated by law.
The thing that differentiates the rumored Apple TV set is its network capability. However, this functionality requires additional hardware which will increase its owner's capital outlay. This whole scheme sounds like it may be well-suited to the hospitality industry and to institutions. For the home user, it may be overkill.
If they did this, would they keep selling the Apple TV standalone?
Yes, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If it had PVR functionality I would say yes.
Wanting a PVR or DVR is really missing the point I think. What would you rather; being able to record your favo(u)rite show, or being able to stream any show from the iTunes store any time via a subscription service?
To the point of this thread--I am skeptical. The TV market is a commodity market.
Yeah, and you know why that is? TV's are essentially boring.
The TV market isn't doing anything really cool, really. It's time to change this game up, and bring TV's into the information age. Boom!
I really, really, really, really, really, really want them to be plasma though. My friend, and my sister have plasma's, and I have a newish (3yrs) Sony LCD and it's no contest, plasma's kick the living crap out of LCD's.
Save your life and sanity, open /etc/hosts and type in:
127.0.0.1 cnet.com
127.0.0.1 news.com
127.0.0.1 cnet.co.uk
127.0.0.1 com.com
127.0.0.1 tv.com
127.0.0.1 mp3.com
127.0.0.1 gamespot.com
<Repeat for every domain CNET owns, doing this for every domain CBS owns is optional but recommended>
Save (requires your password since the file is in /private/etc).
When you're done, within a couple of minutes you shouldn't be able to access any of those domains anymore. You'll be a happier man and you won't be posting links to anything they spew on any forums anymore, saving the lives and sanity of many others, one day our sons and daughters will not even remember what a "cnet" is, they'll never have to suffer their curse, or their bad reporting and news coverage. All of this and more if we just apply a teensy bit of self-censorship.
And if you couldn't tell, no I don't take the CNET link you gave as anything near credible, much less worthy of proving your point that Apple will make overpriced and overrated displays we call televisions.
Sebastian
Get a life Sebastian.
You could have said all that crap in a few words. If you don't trust CNet then you don't, just say that. We'll see if "Calcanis" is right on this one. I suspect he is. If you want to bitch, I'd bet no one wants to listen to it.
How do you think "Apple TV" will compete against Hulu.com which has free legal TV from the major networks? It's an interesting situation for both companies. (Hulu.com is a subsidiary of NBC)
Yeah, and you know why that is? TV's are essentially boring.
....
But you did not ask the next question: "Why are TVs boring?"
I will answer the question that you failed to ask. TVs are boring because sets sold into a particular market all must meet a set of standards. Their products are appliances that have to "just work." When Dad wants to watch his game or Mom wants to watch her soaps, neither has the luxury of calling their son at school to turn on the set or change the channel.
As I sad in my previous post, the manufacturer may add features to differentiate it from its competitors. However, added features adds to cost which increases the price for the consumer. If I can get a 120 Hz 1080p 42" LCD HDTV for $1600 US from Sony, then why should I pay $1900 for a similar spec'ed model from Apple?
But you did not ask the next question: "Why are TVs boring?"
I will answer the question that you failed to ask.
Ok. Sorry I didn't predict your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
TVs are boring because sets sold into a particular market all must meet a set of standards. Their products are appliances that have to "just work." When Dad wants to watch his game or Mom wants to watch her soaps, neither has the luxury of calling their son at school to turn on the set or change the channel.
That is not why TV's are boring.
Cars work, fridges work, blenders work. Most are boring, some are not. When you take TV's the situation is more complex with software, display, hardware, overly complex (and too many) remote controls, design and service all having to work together. Yes, from a set-up point of view, even more complex than cars.
When someone gets their cable box for the first time they have to connect it to the TV, or let "the man" do it. And then they have to learn how to use it, which usually takes a while - I've seen relations in action with this stuff, and it's not pretty. For a start they usually have loads or remotes. Besides software; attention to the little details on the hardware is never up to par really. All these little things, and big things like overall design result in products which seem dull, boring, confusing and definitely not "special".
Ultimately could Apple potentially manufacture, distribute and sell, at a worthwhile profit, a TV product that looks sexy, has wonderful, powerful software, is easy to set up and use, and works seamlessly with a service they provide? Yes, I think they could, can, and will.
And if sometimes goes wrong, who do you call? Apple.
Apple would be much better off partnering with actual television manufacturers like Sony and Samsung, getting the Apple TV's guts incorporated directly into a series of televisions. LCD HDTVs is a very competitive market with prices dropping hundreds of dollars almost on a monthly basis, and some retailers selling sets for as much as 25% less than retail price (I got my $3400 television from Amazon for $2500, shipping and tax free).
The Apple that we know and love has never been one to price adjust their products continuously, so if they tried to offer an LCD HDTV, specs and pricing would always be a joke compared to the competition.
Apple would be much better off partnering with actual television manufacturers like Sony and Samsung, getting the Apple TV's guts incorporated directly into a series of televisions.
Getting the guts in is fine, but I don't think if their partners would like Apple producing the software for their TV products. That's the only reason I think that could never work.
The "this market is too competitive" argument applies to all markets; phones, music players, computers, every consumer electronics segment in general, TV's are no different. No, what they will to it continue to sell the Apple TV box as a separate product alongside their all-in-one TV, so if you really want to buy a cheaper TV or a Sony etc., you can grab the box in the store and essentially get a "kind of" similar experience, but not quite. You use their software and their service, but you'll still have some of the typical "plug this in here, and this in there", "too many remotes" issues that plague the TV industry. If you want the truly seamless experience you'll have to pay for it. The experience is what made iTunes music store itself work, when people can work a little harder to get the same content free elsewhere, they choose not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
The Apple that we know and love has never been one to price adjust their products continuously, so if they tried to offer an LCD HDTV, specs and pricing would always be a joke compared to the competition.
As I stated a while back; there's also the possibility they might self-subsidize the product a little, if they decide to sell it with an iPTV service. Which isn't unthinkable.
Comments
I think it will happen.
kormac76
Think about it...
Jason
Their TV setup would reflect their computer lineup if they did that: standalone = Mini, actual TV = iMac.
I think it would be wise of them to go for the low end LCD HDTV market vs the high end plasma etc.
This price range is about £200-600 (32"-42").
The thing is though, if they sell the standalone for £199 and you can already buy a TV for around that price, will people buy a TV with the ATV inside for twice the price?
If it had PVR functionality I would say yes. The only way the ATV will be an attractive add-on is via a subscription model similar to a TV provider but I don't see that happening.
The way providers keep costs down is ridiculous amounts of advertising. Apple won't be prepared to do that so their prices will be higher.
TV networks also get exclusive shows or get shows earlier, which means most/all of the stuff on Apple's network is old content. This is still good *if* you have a big archive of old shows. Apple don't. They have a very small fraction of what competitors offer.
So rather than weigh up what Apple will and won't do - history shows that Apple are prepared to venture into a number of areas and they are already in the TV market - I would still say this won't be a successful venture (just like the standalone box) until they become much more price and feature competitive in this area.
I would certainly like to see them turn the standalone box into a more competitive device first before sealing it inside a TV unit.
...
I think it would be wise of them to go for the low end LCD HDTV market vs the high end plasma etc.
....
Plasma, high end? Surely, you jest. Plasma displays are cheaper than LCD displays of equal size. They are also consume more energy, weigh more, and are advancing more slowly.
To the point of this thread--I am skeptical. The TV market is a commodity market. The dominant seller in the USA is Vizio, a virtual company It sells its product cheap. As described by the C-NET.co.uk post, Apple's product would have to be expensive. Unlike the other markets in which Apple competes, the TV sets are highly constrained by legal standards. What is more, there are several standards and combinations of standards. Any differentiation of product will have to be in addition to the standards mandated by law.
The thing that differentiates the rumored Apple TV set is its network capability. However, this functionality requires additional hardware which will increase its owner's capital outlay. This whole scheme sounds like it may be well-suited to the hospitality industry and to institutions. For the home user, it may be overkill.
If they did this, would they keep selling the Apple TV standalone?
Yes, obviously.
If it had PVR functionality I would say yes.
Wanting a PVR or DVR is really missing the point I think. What would you rather; being able to record your favo(u)rite show, or being able to stream any show from the iTunes store any time via a subscription service?
To the point of this thread--I am skeptical. The TV market is a commodity market.
Yeah, and you know why that is? TV's are essentially boring.
The TV market isn't doing anything really cool, really. It's time to change this game up, and bring TV's into the information age. Boom!
I really, really, really, really, really, really want them to be plasma though. My friend, and my sister have plasma's, and I have a newish (3yrs) Sony LCD and it's no contest, plasma's kick the living crap out of LCD's.
Live
Pay Taxes
Die
Pay more Taxes
And whatever you do… avoid CNET like the plague
Save your life and sanity, open /etc/hosts and type in:
127.0.0.1 cnet.com
127.0.0.1 news.com
127.0.0.1 cnet.co.uk
127.0.0.1 com.com
127.0.0.1 tv.com
127.0.0.1 mp3.com
127.0.0.1 gamespot.com
<Repeat for every domain CNET owns, doing this for every domain CBS owns is optional but recommended>
Save (requires your password since the file is in /private/etc).
When you're done, within a couple of minutes you shouldn't be able to access any of those domains anymore. You'll be a happier man and you won't be posting links to anything they spew on any forums anymore, saving the lives and sanity of many others, one day our sons and daughters will not even remember what a "cnet" is, they'll never have to suffer their curse, or their bad reporting and news coverage. All of this and more if we just apply a teensy bit of self-censorship.
And if you couldn't tell, no I don't take the CNET link you gave as anything near credible, much less worthy of proving your point that Apple will make overpriced and overrated displays we call televisions.
Sebastian
Get a life Sebastian.
You could have said all that crap in a few words. If you don't trust CNet then you don't, just say that. We'll see if "Calcanis" is right on this one. I suspect he is. If you want to bitch, I'd bet no one wants to listen to it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...42#post1284942
Did you make this up? If yes do a larger image, thanks.
Very slick Magoo!
Did you make this up? If yes do a larger image, thanks.
Yup, I made it sometime this summer.
Do you want me to make the jpeg larger in size or the screen larger?
Yeah, and you know why that is? TV's are essentially boring.
....
But you did not ask the next question: "Why are TVs boring?"
I will answer the question that you failed to ask. TVs are boring because sets sold into a particular market all must meet a set of standards. Their products are appliances that have to "just work." When Dad wants to watch his game or Mom wants to watch her soaps, neither has the luxury of calling their son at school to turn on the set or change the channel.
As I sad in my previous post, the manufacturer may add features to differentiate it from its competitors. However, added features adds to cost which increases the price for the consumer. If I can get a 120 Hz 1080p 42" LCD HDTV for $1600 US from Sony, then why should I pay $1900 for a similar spec'ed model from Apple?
Yup, I made it sometime this summer.
Do you want me to make the jpeg larger in size or the screen larger?
Both if you please.
But you did not ask the next question: "Why are TVs boring?"
I will answer the question that you failed to ask.
Ok. Sorry I didn't predict your thoughts.
TVs are boring because sets sold into a particular market all must meet a set of standards. Their products are appliances that have to "just work." When Dad wants to watch his game or Mom wants to watch her soaps, neither has the luxury of calling their son at school to turn on the set or change the channel.
That is not why TV's are boring.
Cars work, fridges work, blenders work. Most are boring, some are not. When you take TV's the situation is more complex with software, display, hardware, overly complex (and too many) remote controls, design and service all having to work together. Yes, from a set-up point of view, even more complex than cars.
When someone gets their cable box for the first time they have to connect it to the TV, or let "the man" do it. And then they have to learn how to use it, which usually takes a while - I've seen relations in action with this stuff, and it's not pretty. For a start they usually have loads or remotes. Besides software; attention to the little details on the hardware is never up to par really. All these little things, and big things like overall design result in products which seem dull, boring, confusing and definitely not "special".
Ultimately could Apple potentially manufacture, distribute and sell, at a worthwhile profit, a TV product that looks sexy, has wonderful, powerful software, is easy to set up and use, and works seamlessly with a service they provide? Yes, I think they could, can, and will.
And if sometimes goes wrong, who do you call? Apple.
The Apple that we know and love has never been one to price adjust their products continuously, so if they tried to offer an LCD HDTV, specs and pricing would always be a joke compared to the competition.
Apple would be much better off partnering with actual television manufacturers like Sony and Samsung, getting the Apple TV's guts incorporated directly into a series of televisions.
Getting the guts in is fine, but I don't think if their partners would like Apple producing the software for their TV products. That's the only reason I think that could never work.
The "this market is too competitive" argument applies to all markets; phones, music players, computers, every consumer electronics segment in general, TV's are no different. No, what they will to it continue to sell the Apple TV box as a separate product alongside their all-in-one TV, so if you really want to buy a cheaper TV or a Sony etc., you can grab the box in the store and essentially get a "kind of" similar experience, but not quite. You use their software and their service, but you'll still have some of the typical "plug this in here, and this in there", "too many remotes" issues that plague the TV industry. If you want the truly seamless experience you'll have to pay for it. The experience is what made iTunes music store itself work, when people can work a little harder to get the same content free elsewhere, they choose not to.
The Apple that we know and love has never been one to price adjust their products continuously, so if they tried to offer an LCD HDTV, specs and pricing would always be a joke compared to the competition.
As I stated a while back; there's also the possibility they might self-subsidize the product a little, if they decide to sell it with an iPTV service. Which isn't unthinkable.