You may be able to stop paying the cable or phone company for TV service but you still need them for internet, otherwise how do you plan to access iTunes?
They will either have to make a deal with Apple or will use their power to slow this model.
In this end this would be great for consumers though.
Apple will not get into the consumer large-screen HDTV market. As smart as Apple has been, it would be a disaster for them.
The HDTV market is a low-margin market. Apple cannot compete against LG, Samsung and Toshiba and probably not even against Panasonic or Sony.
Apple might be able to compete at the high end of the market, but Pioneer, who had plasma sets with the highest quality picture, failed and left the market, even though their sets are still in great demand by video geeks.
Furthermore, Apple's simplification of product design would probably work against them in this case. HDTVs have numerous inputs/outputs, including legacy connections. Most sets support composite video, composite S-Video, component video and HDMI as well as analog, TosLink and in some cases, coax digital in and out. Knowing Apple, they'd stick their mini-display port on there and be done with it and limit the connectivity of other devices. Now I'm not saying that all the legacy connections are absolutely necessary, but it's what the marketplace expects.
Most modern sets have some web apps and connectivity built-in to support Pandora, Netflix, Amazon On-Demand and many others. Apple would probably only support Apple TV or links to the iTunes store.
I think Apple would produce a set that has a great design and looks fantastic when shut off. I think their menu design would kill everyone else's (although I'm not all that impressed with Apple TV). But I think they would not be interested in necessarily providing the best picture quality and they probably wouldn't provide ISF control access for calibrators. And since they'd probably be priced among the most expensive sets in the market, I don't see how they'd be successful, except among those who must have Apple everything.
The electronics manufacturers come out with new models every year. As the year progresses, the price of current models varies considerably. Apple doesn't do this. Even after new models are released, the price of previous Apple models drop only modestly. In addition, street prices tend to be way below list price. Apple would have a hard time competing with this. For example, Sony's 2010 model 55" KDL-EX710 started out at $2500. Sony has changed the price since its release to as little as $1800. Best Buy was recently selling this set for $1499. When the 2011 models are released in April, this set could drop to as low as $1000. And Sony is a relatively high-priced supplier.
On the other hand, if Apple produced a set that had the picture quality of a Pioneer Kuro, it would probably be the one time that I would sleep outside a store overnight to be one of the first in line to acquire a set.
If they did do it...it would be an LED TV, right? Plasma and LCD are old technology where LED is the brightest, best picture and thinnest, newest tech, right?
I agree the tv companies were hoping 3D was going to be like "color" TV's were to BW TV's back in the olden days....3D looks like it has fizzled!
You mean OLED (e.g., AMOLED)? OLED is still super expensive for large screen and has many issues so frankly, I do not see that happening for awhile. Heck, OLED isn't used on any Apple products.
If you are referring to mass market TVs with LED lighting, you do realize that those TVs and displays are still LCD? Just as how most Apple displays are LCD with LED back or edge lighting? And that these TVs are still inferior to plasma.
As I've said before, I detest the current clunky TV interfaces. I would just love it if Apple made a super thin 50"-90" HDTV with AppleTV included.
Imagine an Apple 50" TV with only one cable attached, the power cord. No HDMI cables
My iMac has only the power cord coming out of it! (BT KB, TrackPad & MagicMouse) (No power brick)
My Brother all-in-one wifi printer has only the power cord coming out of it! (No power brick)
I try not buy any tech equipment that Apple does not make. I hate cables, power bricks that clutter up my home/office and look terrible too!
I sold my camera when I got an iPhone 4 and bought the TomTom GPS App (which I highly recommend!) instead of buying a stand alone GPS unit.
Best
I used to have Comcast, but recently switched to U-Verse. The interface is definitely much better! More responsive, more logical, better looking, etc. Of course, I'm still jumping around using channel up + channel down, and there's some other weird stuff going on. Not Apple quality UI obviously.
My dream would not necessarily be an Apple branded television set, but an upgraded Apple TV:
+Guide/DVR interface by Apple
+Compatible with Apple Remote, iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad
And Apple has made it clear that they're not going to do most of those components on the stack.
But seriously, does Munster have any idea what the warehousing and showroom space would be to support the entire range of monitor sizes that people want, ranging from 20" to 100"?
Nuts doesn't begin to describe the idea.
Not just the warehousing and showroom space but think of how many existing AppleTVs you could ship for the same cost as a single 50" Apple television. This is such a low-margin business compared to Apple typical product margins.
They could possibly license AppleTV tech to existing television makers but Apple has not really been in the technology licensing business.
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
I own several Pioneer Kuro sets. They are great- I think the picture is still better than a high-end Panasonic plasma set I bought last year. Why did Pioneer exit this business? Because most people refused to pay the higher cost for a Kuro in a market that has been fully-commoditized. Things are a lot different in terms of price points compared to when Apple introduced the iPod against other PMPs.
Why would Apple make an Apple branded TV when they could just put a dock connector on Apple TV and wait for manufacturers to support it. Then you would just buy a TV with an Apple TV dock and slide your Apple TV into the dock and you'd have a 50" Apple TV.
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
Also Apple would have to make it a matte screen or some kind of anti glare which they don't seem to be into these days.
It would be very nice I am sure but doesn't seem to fit into the direction they going in right now when it comes to any of their displays.
____________________
Hmmm. But have you checked the price of the mediocre Bag & Olufsen TVs recently. Apple favours serving the smaller but premium buyers i any market - the people who are content to pay more for an optimal solution. Small market share. Higher price. Lion's share of the sector's profit share.
They are going to release a super-sized 50" Ipad, that's what the screens are for.
It will weigh 29 pounds and you have to be a body builder to hold it, but then again, this device is not targeted towards your average consumer. The 50" ipad will also feature a retina display, meaning that it will have a resolution of 19200 x 10800 and it will require 16 octo-core GPUs to push all of those pixels.
Hmmm. But have you checked the price of the mediocre Bag & Olufsen TVs recently. Apple favours serving the smaller but premium buyers i any market - the people who are content to pay more for an optimal solution. Small market share. Higher price. Lion's share of the sector's profit share.
Sound familiar?
B&O notwithstanding, the prime example of a very high-quality line of TVs (that really were high quality and not just snob appeal quality) was the Pioneer Kuro line. That line had a picture quality still not achievable today by others, even though Panasonic hired many of the Kuro engineers. But Pioneer got out of the business. Furthermore, reports indicate that high-end TVs, especially those with 3D capability, did not do well during the holiday selling season. The top of the Sony line has always been the XBR series. In 2011, there will be only one XBR model (in several sizes).
And I don't think Apple is interested anymore in niche markets. Apple getting out of the server market and not recently updating the MacPro tower is proof enough of that. This is one of the disadvantages of Apple being so successful in the last few years.
The real question is what value add does Apple bring to the table? Aside from a possibly better user interface for the TV Guide and setup, I don't see much. As per my other post, I see the opposite: I see Apple stripping down the capabilities for the sake of simplicity. And I don't think that Apple cares about ultimate image quality (they might care about the ultimate industrial design of the set though.) However, if Apple could produce a set which would work wirelessly with the complete Apple computer and portable device line, they might have something (as long as that also includes an embedded Blu-ray player). But it's got to be for anything I have on the device, not just media I have within iTunes.
B&O sells so few sets (at least in the U.S.) that they are a completely insignificant player. And do they really make them or are they someone else's sets rebranded?
B&O notwithstanding, the prime example of a very high-quality line of TVs (that really were high quality and not just snob appeal quality) was the Pioneer Kuro line. That line had a picture quality still not achievable today by others, even though Panasonic hired many of the Kuro engineers. But Pioneer got out of the business. Furthermore, reports indicate that high-end TVs, especially those with 3D capability, did not do well during the holiday selling season. The top of the Sony line has always been the XBR series. In 2011, there will be only one XBR model (in several sizes).
They not only hired many of the Pioneer engineers, they also acquired a lot of the IP for plasma display. Panasonic can't match the Kuro performance because, in order to do so, they will take themselves out of the competitive market - the same problem Pioneer faced.
no offence but Munster must be off his meds. What Apple is doing is securing the procurement of their supply chain and for a very good reason. With so many devices being released each year and the invasion of tablets it will become increasingly difficult for Apple to get the number of display that they need. On top of that the whole Windows part of the industry has lost their mind and have almost entirely adopted the 16:9 screens. Yeah but that does not fly with Apple and thank f*** for that. The problem is that if the mass produced displays are of the wrong size then you have to invest in displays and possibly make your own. Hence the 3.9 bill investment. And quite frankly an investment consultancy such as Piper Jaffray should have seen this one coming.
From a business standpoint- there are a few things a major investment of this magnitude can involve:
1. Prepayment on future flash components
2. Advance payment on future screens (various sizes)
3. A shared manufacturing plant (most likely with Samsung) to manufacture future chips based on Apple'e Fabless Designer companies they purchased, and utilizing Samsung's manufacturing technology to place more chips into their products, plus manufacture screens in the same facility. Try to keep the ecosystems and supply chain in sync with demand-
This enables Apple to ensure quality chipsets and screens without their vendors sacrificing their parts or manufacturing process to to meet demand from other clients.
Apple has been plagued by demand, and it is obviously too difficult to meet every countries demand quota.
Investing in its own shared manufacturing plant will help boost quantities of all future models (Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iPod, and possibly Macs) to meet a healthy demand line.
This is the same reason why Intel is spending a lot of money opening a new plant in order to meet future demands from all of its clients.
This is all wrong. Forget 3DTV. Apple is going straight to holograms.
I'm surprised at how many people think it is a goofy idea that Apple would get into TV's... that the market is too mature... that the current Apple TV is all that is needed. What BS. Apple has ATTEMPTED THIS ALREADY! Remember the Macintosh TV back in the early 90's?????
Jobs founded NEXT computer... the company didn't last, but a lot of the ideas and technology did show up in the Macs. Cell phones & MP3 players were a relatively mature market when Apple joined in the market... and because Apple really focuses on the user interface, they quickly dominated that market.
I may not gamble that a new Apple Mac/TV will be out in a year or two... but it seems very likely that they will take a stab at it again... even if you totally ignore everything said in the article, it's a product they've attempted before, they do have the Apple TV... and integrating the devices is a very natural fit.
Well Apple did have the Newton before the iPhone or iPad and history does tend to repeat itself!
Dummy terminals -> the "Cloud"
Mac vs PC -> iOS vs Android/Win 7 Mobile/Crackberry
G4 Cube -> Mac Mini
Netscape vs IE -> Firefox vs IE
Now where is that follow up to the Pippin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker275
I'm surprised at how many people think it is a goofy idea that Apple would get into TV's... that the market is too mature... that the current Apple TV is all that is needed. What BS. Apple has ATTEMPTED THIS ALREADY! Remember the Macintosh TV back in the early 90's?????
Jobs founded NEXT computer... the company didn't last, but a lot of the ideas and technology did show up in the Macs. Cell phones & MP3 players were a relatively mature market when Apple joined in the market... and because Apple really focuses on the user interface, they quickly dominated that market.
I may not gamble that a new Apple Mac/TV will be out in a year or two... but it seems very likely that they will take a stab at it again... even if you totally ignore everything said in the article, it's a product they've attempted before, they do have the Apple TV... and integrating the devices is a very natural fit.
I also disagree with those who argue against an Apple HDTV because TVs are low-margin. Computers are low margin. What Apple does is turn commodity products into boutique, luxury items.
I disagree with the argument that Apple TV suffices for any conceivable purpose an Apple HDTV could serve. One could wrongly say the same thing about OS X with respect to Mac computers. (That is, I'm making an analogy that OS X is to Macs what Apple TV is to an Apple HDTV and I'm saying that it's not Apple's style to forsake the latter for the former.)
None of this means that Apple is working on an HDTV; it's just that there's no reason to suspect that they're not.
Consider, in the context of the anticipated "iTunes pass", that Apple just gave away a $10,000 iTunes gift card.
Consider that Verizon is selling iPhones and that Verizon and AT&T both do cable.
Consider FOX on the iPad.
Consider the server farms.
I think that Apple could successfully sell HDTVs.
A while back, I predicted that Apple would license OS X when their stock traded at $400. That's not that far away. While Jobs might never allow such a thing to happen, his future with Apple is uncertain. If OS X is somehow integrated with an Apple HDTV, and if OS X is indiscriminately licensed, then even more reason to think an Apple HDTV could succeed in the market place. (I realize that I'm partially negating one of my above commentaries; meh.)
Comments
They will either have to make a deal with Apple or will use their power to slow this model.
In this end this would be great for consumers though.
The HDTV market is a low-margin market. Apple cannot compete against LG, Samsung and Toshiba and probably not even against Panasonic or Sony.
Apple might be able to compete at the high end of the market, but Pioneer, who had plasma sets with the highest quality picture, failed and left the market, even though their sets are still in great demand by video geeks.
Furthermore, Apple's simplification of product design would probably work against them in this case. HDTVs have numerous inputs/outputs, including legacy connections. Most sets support composite video, composite S-Video, component video and HDMI as well as analog, TosLink and in some cases, coax digital in and out. Knowing Apple, they'd stick their mini-display port on there and be done with it and limit the connectivity of other devices. Now I'm not saying that all the legacy connections are absolutely necessary, but it's what the marketplace expects.
Most modern sets have some web apps and connectivity built-in to support Pandora, Netflix, Amazon On-Demand and many others. Apple would probably only support Apple TV or links to the iTunes store.
I think Apple would produce a set that has a great design and looks fantastic when shut off. I think their menu design would kill everyone else's (although I'm not all that impressed with Apple TV). But I think they would not be interested in necessarily providing the best picture quality and they probably wouldn't provide ISF control access for calibrators. And since they'd probably be priced among the most expensive sets in the market, I don't see how they'd be successful, except among those who must have Apple everything.
The electronics manufacturers come out with new models every year. As the year progresses, the price of current models varies considerably. Apple doesn't do this. Even after new models are released, the price of previous Apple models drop only modestly. In addition, street prices tend to be way below list price. Apple would have a hard time competing with this. For example, Sony's 2010 model 55" KDL-EX710 started out at $2500. Sony has changed the price since its release to as little as $1800. Best Buy was recently selling this set for $1499. When the 2011 models are released in April, this set could drop to as low as $1000. And Sony is a relatively high-priced supplier.
On the other hand, if Apple produced a set that had the picture quality of a Pioneer Kuro, it would probably be the one time that I would sleep outside a store overnight to be one of the first in line to acquire a set.
If they did do it...it would be an LED TV, right? Plasma and LCD are old technology where LED is the brightest, best picture and thinnest, newest tech, right?
I agree the tv companies were hoping 3D was going to be like "color" TV's were to BW TV's back in the olden days....3D looks like it has fizzled!
You mean OLED (e.g., AMOLED)? OLED is still super expensive for large screen and has many issues so frankly, I do not see that happening for awhile. Heck, OLED isn't used on any Apple products.
If you are referring to mass market TVs with LED lighting, you do realize that those TVs and displays are still LCD? Just as how most Apple displays are LCD with LED back or edge lighting? And that these TVs are still inferior to plasma.
You all may be right...but it would be nice.
As I've said before, I detest the current clunky TV interfaces. I would just love it if Apple made a super thin 50"-90" HDTV with AppleTV included.
Imagine an Apple 50" TV with only one cable attached, the power cord. No HDMI cables
My iMac has only the power cord coming out of it! (BT KB, TrackPad & MagicMouse) (No power brick)
My Brother all-in-one wifi printer has only the power cord coming out of it! (No power brick)
I try not buy any tech equipment that Apple does not make. I hate cables, power bricks that clutter up my home/office and look terrible too!
I sold my camera when I got an iPhone 4 and bought the TomTom GPS App (which I highly recommend!) instead of buying a stand alone GPS unit.
Best
I used to have Comcast, but recently switched to U-Verse. The interface is definitely much better! More responsive, more logical, better looking, etc. Of course, I'm still jumping around using channel up + channel down, and there's some other weird stuff going on. Not Apple quality UI obviously.
My dream would not necessarily be an Apple branded television set, but an upgraded Apple TV:
+Guide/DVR interface by Apple
+Compatible with Apple Remote, iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad
+Record and stream to iOS devices or Mac
Apple TV + Tivo + Slingbox. $200. Killer!
This is all wrong. Forget 3DTV. Apple is going straight to holograms.
3D TV is a gimmick. Old fashioned color reigns supreme.
And Apple has made it clear that they're not going to do most of those components on the stack.
But seriously, does Munster have any idea what the warehousing and showroom space would be to support the entire range of monitor sizes that people want, ranging from 20" to 100"?
Nuts doesn't begin to describe the idea.
Not just the warehousing and showroom space but think of how many existing AppleTVs you could ship for the same cost as a single 50" Apple television. This is such a low-margin business compared to Apple typical product margins.
They could possibly license AppleTV tech to existing television makers but Apple has not really been in the technology licensing business.
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
I own several Pioneer Kuro sets. They are great- I think the picture is still better than a high-end Panasonic plasma set I bought last year. Why did Pioneer exit this business? Because most people refused to pay the higher cost for a Kuro in a market that has been fully-commoditized. Things are a lot different in terms of price points compared to when Apple introduced the iPod against other PMPs.
Why would Apple make an Apple branded TV when they could just put a dock connector on Apple TV and wait for manufacturers to support it. Then you would just buy a TV with an Apple TV dock and slide your Apple TV into the dock and you'd have a 50" Apple TV.
Bingo!
Well also think what this might cost. Apple charges 999.00 for their 27" LED monitor. You have to figure something around 50" is going to be close to 3000.00 at least coming from Apple.
Also Apple would have to make it a matte screen or some kind of anti glare which they don't seem to be into these days.
It would be very nice I am sure but doesn't seem to fit into the direction they going in right now when it comes to any of their displays.
____________________
Hmmm. But have you checked the price of the mediocre Bag & Olufsen TVs recently. Apple favours serving the smaller but premium buyers i any market - the people who are content to pay more for an optimal solution. Small market share. Higher price. Lion's share of the sector's profit share.
Sound familiar?
They are going to release a super-sized 50" Ipad, that's what the screens are for.
It will weigh 29 pounds and you have to be a body builder to hold it, but then again, this device is not targeted towards your average consumer. The 50" ipad will also feature a retina display, meaning that it will have a resolution of 19200 x 10800 and it will require 16 octo-core GPUs to push all of those pixels.
____________________
Hmmm. But have you checked the price of the mediocre Bag & Olufsen TVs recently. Apple favours serving the smaller but premium buyers i any market - the people who are content to pay more for an optimal solution. Small market share. Higher price. Lion's share of the sector's profit share.
Sound familiar?
B&O notwithstanding, the prime example of a very high-quality line of TVs (that really were high quality and not just snob appeal quality) was the Pioneer Kuro line. That line had a picture quality still not achievable today by others, even though Panasonic hired many of the Kuro engineers. But Pioneer got out of the business. Furthermore, reports indicate that high-end TVs, especially those with 3D capability, did not do well during the holiday selling season. The top of the Sony line has always been the XBR series. In 2011, there will be only one XBR model (in several sizes).
And I don't think Apple is interested anymore in niche markets. Apple getting out of the server market and not recently updating the MacPro tower is proof enough of that. This is one of the disadvantages of Apple being so successful in the last few years.
The real question is what value add does Apple bring to the table? Aside from a possibly better user interface for the TV Guide and setup, I don't see much. As per my other post, I see the opposite: I see Apple stripping down the capabilities for the sake of simplicity. And I don't think that Apple cares about ultimate image quality (they might care about the ultimate industrial design of the set though.) However, if Apple could produce a set which would work wirelessly with the complete Apple computer and portable device line, they might have something (as long as that also includes an embedded Blu-ray player). But it's got to be for anything I have on the device, not just media I have within iTunes.
B&O sells so few sets (at least in the U.S.) that they are a completely insignificant player. And do they really make them or are they someone else's sets rebranded?
B&O notwithstanding, the prime example of a very high-quality line of TVs (that really were high quality and not just snob appeal quality) was the Pioneer Kuro line. That line had a picture quality still not achievable today by others, even though Panasonic hired many of the Kuro engineers. But Pioneer got out of the business. Furthermore, reports indicate that high-end TVs, especially those with 3D capability, did not do well during the holiday selling season. The top of the Sony line has always been the XBR series. In 2011, there will be only one XBR model (in several sizes).
They not only hired many of the Pioneer engineers, they also acquired a lot of the IP for plasma display. Panasonic can't match the Kuro performance because, in order to do so, they will take themselves out of the competitive market - the same problem Pioneer faced.
1. Prepayment on future flash components
2. Advance payment on future screens (various sizes)
3. A shared manufacturing plant (most likely with Samsung) to manufacture future chips based on Apple'e Fabless Designer companies they purchased, and utilizing Samsung's manufacturing technology to place more chips into their products, plus manufacture screens in the same facility. Try to keep the ecosystems and supply chain in sync with demand-
This enables Apple to ensure quality chipsets and screens without their vendors sacrificing their parts or manufacturing process to to meet demand from other clients.
Apple has been plagued by demand, and it is obviously too difficult to meet every countries demand quota.
Investing in its own shared manufacturing plant will help boost quantities of all future models (Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iPod, and possibly Macs) to meet a healthy demand line.
This is the same reason why Intel is spending a lot of money opening a new plant in order to meet future demands from all of its clients.
This is all wrong. Forget 3DTV. Apple is going straight to holograms.
I'm surprised at how many people think it is a goofy idea that Apple would get into TV's... that the market is too mature... that the current Apple TV is all that is needed. What BS. Apple has ATTEMPTED THIS ALREADY! Remember the Macintosh TV back in the early 90's?????
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ts/mac_tv.html
Jobs founded NEXT computer... the company didn't last, but a lot of the ideas and technology did show up in the Macs. Cell phones & MP3 players were a relatively mature market when Apple joined in the market... and because Apple really focuses on the user interface, they quickly dominated that market.
I may not gamble that a new Apple Mac/TV will be out in a year or two... but it seems very likely that they will take a stab at it again... even if you totally ignore everything said in the article, it's a product they've attempted before, they do have the Apple TV... and integrating the devices is a very natural fit.
holograms, fanboiz. Holograms. Apple can create an new market for holograms like the new market for tablets.
Well Apple did have the Newton before the iPhone or iPad and history does tend to repeat itself!
Dummy terminals -> the "Cloud"
Mac vs PC -> iOS vs Android/Win 7 Mobile/Crackberry
G4 Cube -> Mac Mini
Netscape vs IE -> Firefox vs IE
Now where is that follow up to the Pippin?
I'm surprised at how many people think it is a goofy idea that Apple would get into TV's... that the market is too mature... that the current Apple TV is all that is needed. What BS. Apple has ATTEMPTED THIS ALREADY! Remember the Macintosh TV back in the early 90's?????
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ts/mac_tv.html
Jobs founded NEXT computer... the company didn't last, but a lot of the ideas and technology did show up in the Macs. Cell phones & MP3 players were a relatively mature market when Apple joined in the market... and because Apple really focuses on the user interface, they quickly dominated that market.
I may not gamble that a new Apple Mac/TV will be out in a year or two... but it seems very likely that they will take a stab at it again... even if you totally ignore everything said in the article, it's a product they've attempted before, they do have the Apple TV... and integrating the devices is a very natural fit.
This is the same reason why Intel is spending a lot of money opening a new plant in order to meet future demands from all of its clients.
I disagree. Jim Jubak has an interesting take on Intel's spending and plant construction:
http://jubakpicks.com/2011/01/18/the...ipment-makers/
http://jubakpicks.com/2011/01/12/sell-intel-intc/
Also, reference AppleInsider's own parallel story:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...successes.html
I also disagree with those who argue against an Apple HDTV because TVs are low-margin. Computers are low margin. What Apple does is turn commodity products into boutique, luxury items.
I disagree with the argument that Apple TV suffices for any conceivable purpose an Apple HDTV could serve. One could wrongly say the same thing about OS X with respect to Mac computers. (That is, I'm making an analogy that OS X is to Macs what Apple TV is to an Apple HDTV and I'm saying that it's not Apple's style to forsake the latter for the former.)
None of this means that Apple is working on an HDTV; it's just that there's no reason to suspect that they're not.
Consider, in the context of the anticipated "iTunes pass", that Apple just gave away a $10,000 iTunes gift card.
Consider that Verizon is selling iPhones and that Verizon and AT&T both do cable.
Consider FOX on the iPad.
Consider the server farms.
I think that Apple could successfully sell HDTVs.
A while back, I predicted that Apple would license OS X when their stock traded at $400. That's not that far away. While Jobs might never allow such a thing to happen, his future with Apple is uncertain. If OS X is somehow integrated with an Apple HDTV, and if OS X is indiscriminately licensed, then even more reason to think an Apple HDTV could succeed in the market place. (I realize that I'm partially negating one of my above commentaries; meh.)