There's NO WAY Apple would EVER jump into a low-margin commodity business like selling television sets.
Yep and they'll never make low margin cell phones either.
Or maybe they'll do what they always do which is produce an innovative product that people will pay a premium for. All of Apple's products are like this. Why is this difficult for people to understand?
I said this in another post (tried looking for it but i guess i have to re-type it). With Apple's current relationship with ATT as it stands today. I could easily see Apple partnering with ATT's U-Verse Cable group to produce a product that is subsidized through ATT and Apple does the rest. The UI, the App/iTunes Store, iOS4 (or whatever the current release is), A DVR that works with the UI and U-Verse. It seems like a very plausible scenario. Just like the iPhone, Apple would use it's own UI to do TV, like the YouTube app you'd have your Cable TV App.
But, one big hurdle would have to be overcome:
1. Pay-per-view. ATT and other cable companies rely pretty heavily on PPV TV programming, and the iTunes Store would take a big chunck out of that with Rentals, the Hulu and Netflix Apps as well.
But still, i think this is VERY plausible...
You're exactly right. No one can do anything in the TV market without the backing of a provider. Only problem is that currently cable companies are just a race to the bottom and offering more channels. Apple hardware would surely be more expensive than the crappy boxes they have now, and that would make ATT more expensive service.
On top of that, like you said, AT&T loses money on the rentals and PPV which they invested a lot of money into. I doubt they ditch it.
The one problem with this concept is that Cable providers also are the primary broadband providers in most areas. Therefore, as soon as people start dropping their cable subscriptions, the cable companies will just make internet costs more and decrease cable prices. I'm surprised they haven't done it already. Ultimately, they control all the content coming into your house, either through cable or internet, and they're not going to let Apple take away half their business through their own pipes.
Sorry guys, the only people that can revolutionize TV are current cable providers.
This is exactly my experience with Comcast internet. I tried to purchase internet only and found it would cost me more then getting internet plus basic cable bundled together. Then you have all the promotional and package deals that entice you to get more then just internet.
I for one would love to have a more all in one solution. Currently, HD TV's and desktop computers are quite dissimilar when it comes to the screen resolution and inputs/outputs of each, especially when working in the Mac ecosystem. A mac mini paired to a HD TV isn't enough power to play the current crop of computer games being released. But an iMac doesn't easily allow for connecting a gaming console and/or cable TV box. The easiest solution I find is dreaming of HDMI inputs on an iMac. I imagine HDMI inputs is most likely sharing the same boat as Blu-ray, both floating far out in the ocean falling off the end of the world.
Gene Munster is a very lucky guy. He keeps on getting paid for talking nonsense, and some people are naive enough to take him seriously.
His "Apple are going to start selling TV's" line is one he has been pushing for about 5 years, since rumours of the name Apple TV or iTV circulated and some people thought this meant an actual TV rather than a box. Anyone who spends a moment thinking about the number of size variations, plus all the other permutations of models and the speed of innovation in a cut-throat market should soon understand that selling HDTV's is something Apple will leave to the people who are able to do it best. Not to mention that Apple sells its products globally, while what works for TV in the US does not work in Asia or Europe.
Gene Munster has been pushing this story for so long that he can interpret any change as proof that it is coming true soon. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The fact that the Mac Mini has an HDMI port is further proof that Apple expects its home theatre product to be connected to even more HD displays made by others.
I do not get paid to make wild and unsupported predictions about the Apple TV, but if I had to it would be this: in a world where you and your family use iPads and iPhones, there will be less need for desktop computers and more need for a home server that backs up your media, iPads, iPhones and iTunes accounts. The Mac Mini will then replace your iMac or home PC, using your HDTV to display media and as an occasional monitor.
Meanwhile, the AppleTV line will become lower-spec versions of the Mac Mini or low-cost "headless iPad" internet boxes for your TV, depending on your home server needs.
Yeah, Apple wants to get into a cutthroat commodity business where nobody makes any money.... sure!!!
The Mini has an HDMI port because... it IS Apple's entry into the home theater market. It is fully functional as a television / video convergence device and it's here today. There is no added value by building the Mini into a one-size fits all display.
I see what Munster is thinking but he forgot to say what the point is. A Mini ($999 for the good one) with a $1000 television gets you an absolutely killer setup today, minus Blu-Ray. Which frankly, it should have.
Wonder how iTunes is going to replace my Blu-ray player... when iTunes movies are limited to 720p.
This Apple TV is going to replace my Denon Surround Sound Receiver with Definitive Technology 5.1 surround sound speakers with... 2 built in TV Speakers. Lol
It's gonna replace my game console too right? Because I'm sure a TV is going to be capable of displaying Hi-End graphics from all the latest games.
Going to replace my FIOS TV too? So all the channels I get with FIOS, I"ll be able to get with Apple TV. Don't hold your breath on that one.
It's these kind of bullshit claims that makes me hate Apple Fan Boys. This does nothing but try to justify Apple's 60% Markup while everyone else is the industry uses 30%.
The numbers are (like many times when two very different settings are compared) rather random. Why would you have to add a receiver (of a surround sound system) only to the TV set, but not to the counterpart produced by Apple?! Sure, you can have a huge screen without surround sound ... but in my opinion, that's no fun.
I dont see any connection between Apple releasing the new Mini and the possibility of an Apple internet TV. I would imagine that a smart, internet HDTV from Apple might replace the need for an Apple TV, but you wouldn't want both, nor a smart TV and a Mini to buy as well, and so this analyst is making up a link to support a view he already has.
I do think that the new Mini with its sleeker aluminum design and media-friendly HDMI connector means Apple want Minis in the home. My guess is they will now sit back for quite a while and see what people do, then decide whether to kill the Apple TV and how much to push the Mini in the home with new negotiated content or perhaps Tivo-like front end and ability to communicate with cable cards, or whatever is the result of this experiment.
I agree. The current Mac Mini disposes of the need for an internet connected TV. The addition of HDMI to the Mac Mini is a nod to consumers who have been using the Mac Mini as an addition to their home theater system, or at least have been hesitant up to this point.
This is not a sign of Apple moving in to the TV business. You really have to go a long way through some convoluted thinking to get to the conclusion that this is a sign that Apple is moving in to the TV business.
Comments
There's NO WAY Apple would EVER jump into a low-margin commodity business like selling television sets.
Yep and they'll never make low margin cell phones either.
Or maybe they'll do what they always do which is produce an innovative product that people will pay a premium for. All of Apple's products are like this. Why is this difficult for people to understand?
I said this in another post (tried looking for it but i guess i have to re-type it). With Apple's current relationship with ATT as it stands today. I could easily see Apple partnering with ATT's U-Verse Cable group to produce a product that is subsidized through ATT and Apple does the rest. The UI, the App/iTunes Store, iOS4 (or whatever the current release is), A DVR that works with the UI and U-Verse. It seems like a very plausible scenario. Just like the iPhone, Apple would use it's own UI to do TV, like the YouTube app you'd have your Cable TV App.
But, one big hurdle would have to be overcome:
1. Pay-per-view. ATT and other cable companies rely pretty heavily on PPV TV programming, and the iTunes Store would take a big chunck out of that with Rentals, the Hulu and Netflix Apps as well.
But still, i think this is VERY plausible...
You're exactly right. No one can do anything in the TV market without the backing of a provider. Only problem is that currently cable companies are just a race to the bottom and offering more channels. Apple hardware would surely be more expensive than the crappy boxes they have now, and that would make ATT more expensive service.
On top of that, like you said, AT&T loses money on the rentals and PPV which they invested a lot of money into. I doubt they ditch it.
The one problem with this concept is that Cable providers also are the primary broadband providers in most areas. Therefore, as soon as people start dropping their cable subscriptions, the cable companies will just make internet costs more and decrease cable prices. I'm surprised they haven't done it already. Ultimately, they control all the content coming into your house, either through cable or internet, and they're not going to let Apple take away half their business through their own pipes.
Sorry guys, the only people that can revolutionize TV are current cable providers.
This is exactly my experience with Comcast internet. I tried to purchase internet only and found it would cost me more then getting internet plus basic cable bundled together. Then you have all the promotional and package deals that entice you to get more then just internet.
I for one would love to have a more all in one solution. Currently, HD TV's and desktop computers are quite dissimilar when it comes to the screen resolution and inputs/outputs of each, especially when working in the Mac ecosystem. A mac mini paired to a HD TV isn't enough power to play the current crop of computer games being released. But an iMac doesn't easily allow for connecting a gaming console and/or cable TV box. The easiest solution I find is dreaming of HDMI inputs on an iMac. I imagine HDMI inputs is most likely sharing the same boat as Blu-ray, both floating far out in the ocean falling off the end of the world.
His "Apple are going to start selling TV's" line is one he has been pushing for about 5 years, since rumours of the name Apple TV or iTV circulated and some people thought this meant an actual TV rather than a box. Anyone who spends a moment thinking about the number of size variations, plus all the other permutations of models and the speed of innovation in a cut-throat market should soon understand that selling HDTV's is something Apple will leave to the people who are able to do it best. Not to mention that Apple sells its products globally, while what works for TV in the US does not work in Asia or Europe.
Gene Munster has been pushing this story for so long that he can interpret any change as proof that it is coming true soon. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The fact that the Mac Mini has an HDMI port is further proof that Apple expects its home theatre product to be connected to even more HD displays made by others.
I do not get paid to make wild and unsupported predictions about the Apple TV, but if I had to it would be this: in a world where you and your family use iPads and iPhones, there will be less need for desktop computers and more need for a home server that backs up your media, iPads, iPhones and iTunes accounts. The Mac Mini will then replace your iMac or home PC, using your HDTV to display media and as an occasional monitor.
Meanwhile, the AppleTV line will become lower-spec versions of the Mac Mini or low-cost "headless iPad" internet boxes for your TV, depending on your home server needs.
The Mini has an HDMI port because... it IS Apple's entry into the home theater market. It is fully functional as a television / video convergence device and it's here today. There is no added value by building the Mini into a one-size fits all display.
I see what Munster is thinking but he forgot to say what the point is. A Mini ($999 for the good one) with a $1000 television gets you an absolutely killer setup today, minus Blu-Ray. Which frankly, it should have.
Ugh! This dumb idea is still getting floated around?
Here he comes again.
Wonder how iTunes is going to replace my Blu-ray player... when iTunes movies are limited to 720p.
This Apple TV is going to replace my Denon Surround Sound Receiver with Definitive Technology 5.1 surround sound speakers with... 2 built in TV Speakers. Lol
It's gonna replace my game console too right? Because I'm sure a TV is going to be capable of displaying Hi-End graphics from all the latest games.
Going to replace my FIOS TV too? So all the channels I get with FIOS, I"ll be able to get with Apple TV. Don't hold your breath on that one.
It's these kind of bullshit claims that makes me hate Apple Fan Boys. This does nothing but try to justify Apple's 60% Markup while everyone else is the industry uses 30%.
I dont see any connection between Apple releasing the new Mini and the possibility of an Apple internet TV. I would imagine that a smart, internet HDTV from Apple might replace the need for an Apple TV, but you wouldn't want both, nor a smart TV and a Mini to buy as well, and so this analyst is making up a link to support a view he already has.
I do think that the new Mini with its sleeker aluminum design and media-friendly HDMI connector means Apple want Minis in the home. My guess is they will now sit back for quite a while and see what people do, then decide whether to kill the Apple TV and how much to push the Mini in the home with new negotiated content or perhaps Tivo-like front end and ability to communicate with cable cards, or whatever is the result of this experiment.
I agree. The current Mac Mini disposes of the need for an internet connected TV. The addition of HDMI to the Mac Mini is a nod to consumers who have been using the Mac Mini as an addition to their home theater system, or at least have been hesitant up to this point.
This is not a sign of Apple moving in to the TV business. You really have to go a long way through some convoluted thinking to get to the conclusion that this is a sign that Apple is moving in to the TV business.