Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price.
Perhaps it is because I am not an analyst but I do not see how an Apple branded TV could see ever the light of day. Seriously, it is getting old.
The Apple TV is the right strategy for the living room as it works with existing TV sets and serves the intended purpose: to enable the consumption of iTunes content. They can definitely improve on it (2 thumbs up for adding Netflix support but what about Apple TV Apps?) but it cannot be a better product if it were simply integrated with the TV panel.
Let's remember that Apple entered the smartphone and tablet markets because their offerings were disruptive. They were groundbreaking innovations. The Apple TV in its current form is not a game changer and only proved to be a success after a significant price reduction. That says a lot: consumers are not interested to spend a lot of money to get iTunes content on their TV sets.
Unless these highly paid analysts have something insightful that they are not sharing, an Apple branded TV is not a good idea. Apple is better off focusing on its core competencies.
I tend to agree but with one caveat.
The main problem with the living room now, is that there are multiple sources and multiple boxes and they all have to be blended together at the TV. Studies show that the majority of folks fail to understand the concept of "mode switching." That is they don't like it, and get really confused when they have to switch from cable to DVD, or DVD to Apple TV etc. The tend to stay on the one device and the device they pick is the one with the most content or channels.
Therefore, as long as Apple TV is an accessory or an extra box, that has to be "switched to," in order to see what's on it, it will always be second best, and will never be the first choice of anyone who has "regular" TV (until regular TV fails altogether).
Owning the TV circumvents the problem of being one of the boxes that's merely connected to the TV. It makes you first choice all the time instead of an optional extra.
Another point is that Apple has obviously *thought* about making TV's to the degree that they talk about the "living room strategy" and Jobs' comments on how confused the situation is etc. Whether after thinking about it they actually have plans to try to take it over I don't know, but there are a some good reasons to try.
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1835425]Let me get this straight: Apple should buy Comcast (who now owns NBC) for tens of billions of dollars because you don't like the software on your cable box?
If Apple wants to innovate in the living room then buying a cable co. might be the ticket. The cable co. free set boxes are stifling innovation.\
The Apple TV Extreme will be an approximately 40" TV with a modular slots in the back where you can plug in an AppleTV and an Airport Extreme(optional).
What in the blazes are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
This allows the AppleTV Extreme to be upgraded as new AppleTVs come out for only $99. The Apple TV Extreme will also feature a FaceTime HD camera.
1) Apple TV could be selling along with an all-in-one Apple branded TV providing more options and choices to consumers, just like you have the Mac mini and the iMac in the computing space. That would be the ideal way to go. You don't want to buy Apple TV set? You want to keep your Sony? No worry, go with Apple set top box instead.
2) Apple could be as disruptive in the TV business as it has been with smartphones. You do not have to go far. Just make the app store available for Apple TV and you'll see the impact. Games my friend. And I'm not even talking about the integration of TV programs with other apps...
3) Whether Apple like it or not, TV will have to be part of their core competencies because it will include a computer in it. Sure, we're talking about a different experience from when you sit in front of a desktop. But if Apple does not do it right, someone else will. You don't want an HP or a Google to eat your lunch. This is just like the tablet. Before iPad, nobody did it right so it seems so irrelevant as a product. However they kept trying because they knew there was something there. It was not really clear what, but there was something. All-in-one TV is the same. Do it right and you'll at least lead a space if not owning it.
1) Providing more choices is not necessarily a sound business decision as TV sets are big ticket items. Here you don't provide a variety of choices in the same way as you would for toothpaste. The analogy of the Mac Mini is different because Apple is in the business of building computers! They do not produce panels and they do not have any expertise in display technologies. Just look at how long it took Samsung to overtake Sony. sure apple can rebrand a Samsung but that would eat up their margins.
2) We do not disagree here. I did mention apps. Apple needs to be disruptive indeed if it decides to offer a TV. The question is how? What I am saying is that I do not see the need to have the TV panel integrated in what would be an Apple branded TV.
3) Building a TV set does not have to be part of Apple's core business. Because something has a computer inside of it, Apple has to cater to that market? You might get disappointed.
The AppleTV is fine in its current form. It is not a big financial gamble for Apple and it works with every TV set. Sure it can use improvements but bundling the panel is not one of them.
Building a competency in display technology is difficult. It took Samsung years to catch up to Sony and more time to pass them. Apple will have a steep hill to climb if it enters this market.
Hmmm...TV technology is changing so rapidly. I just wonder if Apple can keep up. They should simply partner with Samsung and avoid as much patent litigation as possible.
As many have said here, building a TV is a low margin, commoditized business. Have you noticed that "Premium" TV brands are not the best sellers (especially in times of recession). Unless they can offer something radically different, I will agree with most people here and say that Apple will most certainly not rebrand a Samsung panel with an Apple TV chip inside. Would you exchange your current TV for such a product for the cost of a new TV (plus "Apple tax") or simply purchase an AppleTV box? Most people would choose option B.
I think you've got to question what they could do that would be radically different. Mobile phones were a pretty low margin business until Apple came along and in truth, the PC market is pathetically low margin, yet Apple manage to make better margins that everyone else.
If they could find a way to resolve the problem of the cable companies having a stranglehold over set top boxes, they could do something special. I've thought for a long time that one of the smaller players in the TV market (I'm thinking US only here) like Dish Network could make a huge leap if they got on board with Apple and had them do their DVR/set-top box, and had that included into a TV. Much like they did with AT&T, there were a number of things that the mobile phone companies weren't doing that are now standard, because Apple pushed AT&T to make changes to their network to suit a better Apple made product.
Either way, I would love to see an Apple TV. I agree with all the arguments that it's a difficult market to get into, but at the same time, I'm looking for a new TV now and while the picture quality of most is excellent, the units themselves look shit. They're all dull black boxes, in the same way PC's used to be dull beige boxes.
I guess i'm in the minority of wanting an Apple-branded TV, complete with built-in DVR, web features, and Apps.
It seems the next obvious market, as TV 4.0 hits soon.
My fear? The sets will be too high in price. A $2000 TV is not going to sell.
Also, how many screen sizes? They won't have 12 screen sizes like the other manufacturers, i'm sure. But you should have one in the 20-,30-,40-, and 50-class ranges.
A $2,000 tablet is not going to sell.
(Just to point out that there were rumors of a $2,000 price tag before the iPad appeared).
The main problem with the living room now, is that there are multiple sources and multiple boxes and they all have to be blended together at the TV. Studies show that the majority of folks fail to understand the concept of "mode switching." That is they don't like it, and get really confused when they have to switch from cable to DVD, or DVD to Apple TV etc. The tend to stay on the one device and the device they pick is the one with the most content or channels.
Therefore, as long as Apple TV is an accessory or an extra box, that has to be switched to to see what's on it, it will always be second best, and will never be the first choice of anyone who has "regular" TV (until regular TV fails altogether).
Owning the TV circumvents the problem of being one of the boxes that's merely connected to the TV. It makes you first choice all the time instead of an optional extra.
Another point is that Apple has obviously *thought* about making TV's to the degree that they talk about the "living room strategy" and Jobs' comments on how confused the situation is etc. Whether after thinking about it they actually have plans to try to take it over I don't know, but there are a some good reasons to try.
Very interesting, thanks!
The problem as stated by Jobs a while ago is that cable providers heavily subsidies their set top box and are unwilling to add other devices. Unless there is a paradigm shift, nothing is going to change he said.
I believe that this paradigm shift and the future of television lies in on-demand services such as Netflix. That is where Apple should focus its attention on (instead of thinking about hardware and panels). Last week, Netflix announced they will offer unique content and produce a TV show. That is something Apple could emulate via iTunes, special programming that you can find no where else. Netflix is great but could use more content. With their pile of cash, Apple can secure exclusive rights to existing content or new ones and deliver it through the cloud.
Of course, the problem with this is that broadcasters have been reluctant to offer up content on iTunes.
The alternative would be to enable apps via AppleTV. Broadcasters who are reluctant to concede too much power to Apple could create an app (based on the subscription model) and preserve control over their content while adding another stream of revenue...
It would make sense for Apple to do all three things. Licence Airplay. Sell the Apple TV box. And announce the Apple TV - the TV. Also, worth mentioning I think, they will very likely rename the little black box when they bring out the TV itself.
They will call it.... "AppleVision" (wow, that's going way back to the early Apple II days, for those who were around back then).
The living room has expanded far beyond the confines of the entertainment center and Apple already owns it, hands down. What they don't own is the HEC. There is a clear distinction between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
There will be 2 products:
The AppleTV for $99
The AppleTV Extreme for $999
The Apple TV Extreme will be an approximately 40" TV with a modular slots in the back where you can plug in an AppleTV and an Airport Extreme(optional). This allows the AppleTV Extreme to be upgraded as new AppleTVs come out for only $99. The Apple TV Extreme will also feature a FaceTime HD camera.
But my bedroom will only fit a 36" set. But I want a much large screen for my living room.
The TV set dynamics are vastly different from computers, yet even within the 3 very common notebook display sizes I can add an external display from any number of vendors for any number of display needs.
I've asked this before and have never gotten a reply. If anyone has a an argument as to why Apple would make 1 (or even a couple) of very limited display sizes with built-in AppleTV hardware that can't be changed unless you replace the entire unit is better for consumers and more profitable for Apple than licensing and working with vendors to supply a better interface for their AppleTV tech I'd love to hear it.
Apple can't even update their own displays on a regaulr basis. Personally, I think Apple is trying to find a midle ground between a separate set top box and making a TV.
I think you've got to question what they could do that would be radically different. Mobile phones were a pretty low margin business until Apple came along and in truth, the PC market is pathetically low margin, yet Apple manage to make better margins that everyone else.
If they could find a way to resolve the problem of the cable companies having a stranglehold over set top boxes, they could do something special. I've thought for a long time that one of the smaller players in the TV market (I'm thinking US only here) like Dish Network could make a huge leap if they got on board with Apple and had them do their DVR/set-top box, and had that included into a TV. Much like they did with AT&T, there were a number of things that the mobile phone companies weren't doing that are now standard, because Apple pushed AT&T to make changes to their network to suit a better Apple made product.
Either way, I would love to see an Apple TV. I agree with all the arguments that it's a difficult market to get into, but at the same time, I'm looking for a new TV now and while the picture quality of most is excellent, the units themselves look shit. They're all dull black boxes, in the same way PC's used to be dull beige boxes.
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one. It seems that some see Apple as the company that can do no wrong which is understandable since they have enjoyed a string of blockbuster products.
You make a great point about how low the margins are in the PC business however as I pointed out, Apple started in this business a while ago. I don't believe the smartphone business was low margin (ask Nokia, RIM). Let's not forget that the iPhone owes its success to the iPod. Apple worked with Motorola on that ugly ROKR phone which gave them enough knowledge to launch their own smartphone...
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here...
The living room is a tough battle ground. If you look at a company like Sony which builds TVs, sells numerous gaming consoles and even possesses amazing content (a movie studio and music label) then you realize that it is hard to pull off. They have all the pieces of the puzzle and cannot even offer an integrated solution.
It's amazing how so many people seem to know exactly what "makes sense" for Apple to do, or not do, in the TV market. The problem is, I remember when many customers were wondering why Apple wasn't making a PDA, because it was so wrong to cede that market to others. Just one example of the conventional wisdom being wrong.
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one. It seems that some see Apple as the company that can do no wrong which is understandable since they have enjoyed a string of blockbuster products.
You make a great point about how low the margins are in the PC business however as I pointed out, Apple started in this business a while ago. I don't believe the smartphone business was low margin (ask Nokia, RIM). Let's not forget that the iPhone owes its success to the iPod. Apple worked with Motorola on that ugly ROKR phone which gave them enough knowledge to launch their own smartphone...
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here...
The living room is a tough battle ground. If you look at a company like Sony which builds TVs, sells numerous gaming consoles and even possesses amazing content (a movie studio and music label) then you realize that it is hard to pull off. They have all the pieces of the puzzle and cannot even offer an integrated solution.
But then again, their management is FUBAR...
Sony is amazingly inept at understanding their customers. They are also fine with suing them and putting their own viruses on music CDs. Sony makes a few good, even great products. They are simply a train wreck of an organization. No leadership, no vision, and no clue.
1. (Unfortunately,) there exists too much diversity in national TV-standards.
And yes, even though we are talking about download TV, you couldn't expect such a TV to have no tuner at all, unless the tuner gets relegated to a settop box. This isn't going to happen. Companies such as Philips that aren't exactly trying to play the Apple game (indeed, they completely ignore Apple or at least they always seem to include Windows-specific incompatibilities in their designs) won't comply.
2. The LCD screen market is evolving so quickly and the variety of models to please a large enough audience is so large that Apple would spend an inexorable amount of resources to get the job done. In fact the Apple TV is so nice because it addresses one particular functionality very well, with the exclusion of terrestrial or sattelite TV tuners. (It would be nice though, if it were easier to let the Apple TV coexist with other settop boxes)
3. In its quest for the best quality products, Apple's prices for the screens may be higher, i.e., less competitive.
Comments
Sounds like more fallacies to increase the stock price.
Perhaps it is because I am not an analyst but I do not see how an Apple branded TV could see ever the light of day. Seriously, it is getting old.
The Apple TV is the right strategy for the living room as it works with existing TV sets and serves the intended purpose: to enable the consumption of iTunes content. They can definitely improve on it (2 thumbs up for adding Netflix support but what about Apple TV Apps?) but it cannot be a better product if it were simply integrated with the TV panel.
Let's remember that Apple entered the smartphone and tablet markets because their offerings were disruptive. They were groundbreaking innovations. The Apple TV in its current form is not a game changer and only proved to be a success after a significant price reduction. That says a lot: consumers are not interested to spend a lot of money to get iTunes content on their TV sets.
Unless these highly paid analysts have something insightful that they are not sharing, an Apple branded TV is not a good idea. Apple is better off focusing on its core competencies.
I tend to agree but with one caveat.
The main problem with the living room now, is that there are multiple sources and multiple boxes and they all have to be blended together at the TV. Studies show that the majority of folks fail to understand the concept of "mode switching." That is they don't like it, and get really confused when they have to switch from cable to DVD, or DVD to Apple TV etc. The tend to stay on the one device and the device they pick is the one with the most content or channels.
Therefore, as long as Apple TV is an accessory or an extra box, that has to be "switched to," in order to see what's on it, it will always be second best, and will never be the first choice of anyone who has "regular" TV (until regular TV fails altogether).
Owning the TV circumvents the problem of being one of the boxes that's merely connected to the TV. It makes you first choice all the time instead of an optional extra.
Another point is that Apple has obviously *thought* about making TV's to the degree that they talk about the "living room strategy" and Jobs' comments on how confused the situation is etc. Whether after thinking about it they actually have plans to try to take it over I don't know, but there are a some good reasons to try.
If Apple wants to innovate in the living room then buying a cable co. might be the ticket. The cable co. free set boxes are stifling innovation.
There will be 2 products:
The AppleTV for $99
The AppleTV Extreme for $999
The Apple TV Extreme will be an approximately 40" TV with a modular slots in the back where you can plug in an AppleTV and an Airport Extreme(optional).
What in the blazes are you talking about?
This allows the AppleTV Extreme to be upgraded as new AppleTVs come out for only $99. The Apple TV Extreme will also feature a FaceTime HD camera.
FaceTime, on a TV? Makes zero sense.
With all due respect, I disagree:
1) Apple TV could be selling along with an all-in-one Apple branded TV providing more options and choices to consumers, just like you have the Mac mini and the iMac in the computing space. That would be the ideal way to go. You don't want to buy Apple TV set? You want to keep your Sony? No worry, go with Apple set top box instead.
2) Apple could be as disruptive in the TV business as it has been with smartphones. You do not have to go far. Just make the app store available for Apple TV and you'll see the impact. Games my friend. And I'm not even talking about the integration of TV programs with other apps...
3) Whether Apple like it or not, TV will have to be part of their core competencies because it will include a computer in it. Sure, we're talking about a different experience from when you sit in front of a desktop. But if Apple does not do it right, someone else will. You don't want an HP or a Google to eat your lunch. This is just like the tablet. Before iPad, nobody did it right so it seems so irrelevant as a product. However they kept trying because they knew there was something there. It was not really clear what, but there was something. All-in-one TV is the same. Do it right and you'll at least lead a space if not owning it.
1) Providing more choices is not necessarily a sound business decision as TV sets are big ticket items. Here you don't provide a variety of choices in the same way as you would for toothpaste. The analogy of the Mac Mini is different because Apple is in the business of building computers! They do not produce panels and they do not have any expertise in display technologies. Just look at how long it took Samsung to overtake Sony. sure apple can rebrand a Samsung but that would eat up their margins.
2) We do not disagree here. I did mention apps. Apple needs to be disruptive indeed if it decides to offer a TV. The question is how? What I am saying is that I do not see the need to have the TV panel integrated in what would be an Apple branded TV.
3) Building a TV set does not have to be part of Apple's core business. Because something has a computer inside of it, Apple has to cater to that market? You might get disappointed.
The AppleTV is fine in its current form. It is not a big financial gamble for Apple and it works with every TV set. Sure it can use improvements but bundling the panel is not one of them.
Building a competency in display technology is difficult. It took Samsung years to catch up to Sony and more time to pass them. Apple will have a steep hill to climb if it enters this market.
Didn't the world get a major clue when Apple dropped the word "computer" from the corporations official name?
As many have said here, building a TV is a low margin, commoditized business. Have you noticed that "Premium" TV brands are not the best sellers (especially in times of recession). Unless they can offer something radically different, I will agree with most people here and say that Apple will most certainly not rebrand a Samsung panel with an Apple TV chip inside. Would you exchange your current TV for such a product for the cost of a new TV (plus "Apple tax") or simply purchase an AppleTV box? Most people would choose option B.
I think you've got to question what they could do that would be radically different. Mobile phones were a pretty low margin business until Apple came along and in truth, the PC market is pathetically low margin, yet Apple manage to make better margins that everyone else.
If they could find a way to resolve the problem of the cable companies having a stranglehold over set top boxes, they could do something special. I've thought for a long time that one of the smaller players in the TV market (I'm thinking US only here) like Dish Network could make a huge leap if they got on board with Apple and had them do their DVR/set-top box, and had that included into a TV. Much like they did with AT&T, there were a number of things that the mobile phone companies weren't doing that are now standard, because Apple pushed AT&T to make changes to their network to suit a better Apple made product.
Either way, I would love to see an Apple TV. I agree with all the arguments that it's a difficult market to get into, but at the same time, I'm looking for a new TV now and while the picture quality of most is excellent, the units themselves look shit. They're all dull black boxes, in the same way PC's used to be dull beige boxes.
FaceTime, on a TV? Makes zero sense.
But the guys from Panasonic, Samsung and LG just look so dang happy!
I guess i'm in the minority of wanting an Apple-branded TV, complete with built-in DVR, web features, and Apps.
It seems the next obvious market, as TV 4.0 hits soon.
My fear? The sets will be too high in price. A $2000 TV is not going to sell.
Also, how many screen sizes? They won't have 12 screen sizes like the other manufacturers, i'm sure. But you should have one in the 20-,30-,40-, and 50-class ranges.
A $2,000 tablet is not going to sell.
(Just to point out that there were rumors of a $2,000 price tag before the iPad appeared).
I tend to agree but with one caveat.
The main problem with the living room now, is that there are multiple sources and multiple boxes and they all have to be blended together at the TV. Studies show that the majority of folks fail to understand the concept of "mode switching." That is they don't like it, and get really confused when they have to switch from cable to DVD, or DVD to Apple TV etc. The tend to stay on the one device and the device they pick is the one with the most content or channels.
Therefore, as long as Apple TV is an accessory or an extra box, that has to be switched to to see what's on it, it will always be second best, and will never be the first choice of anyone who has "regular" TV (until regular TV fails altogether).
Owning the TV circumvents the problem of being one of the boxes that's merely connected to the TV. It makes you first choice all the time instead of an optional extra.
Another point is that Apple has obviously *thought* about making TV's to the degree that they talk about the "living room strategy" and Jobs' comments on how confused the situation is etc. Whether after thinking about it they actually have plans to try to take it over I don't know, but there are a some good reasons to try.
Very interesting, thanks!
The problem as stated by Jobs a while ago is that cable providers heavily subsidies their set top box and are unwilling to add other devices. Unless there is a paradigm shift, nothing is going to change he said.
I believe that this paradigm shift and the future of television lies in on-demand services such as Netflix. That is where Apple should focus its attention on (instead of thinking about hardware and panels). Last week, Netflix announced they will offer unique content and produce a TV show. That is something Apple could emulate via iTunes, special programming that you can find no where else. Netflix is great but could use more content. With their pile of cash, Apple can secure exclusive rights to existing content or new ones and deliver it through the cloud.
Of course, the problem with this is that broadcasters have been reluctant to offer up content on iTunes.
The alternative would be to enable apps via AppleTV. Broadcasters who are reluctant to concede too much power to Apple could create an app (based on the subscription model) and preserve control over their content while adding another stream of revenue...
It would make sense for Apple to do all three things. Licence Airplay. Sell the Apple TV box. And announce the Apple TV - the TV. Also, worth mentioning I think, they will very likely rename the little black box when they bring out the TV itself.
They will call it.... "AppleVision" (wow, that's going way back to the early Apple II days, for those who were around back then).
There will be 2 products:
The AppleTV for $99
The AppleTV Extreme for $999
The Apple TV Extreme will be an approximately 40" TV with a modular slots in the back where you can plug in an AppleTV and an Airport Extreme(optional). This allows the AppleTV Extreme to be upgraded as new AppleTVs come out for only $99. The Apple TV Extreme will also feature a FaceTime HD camera.
But my bedroom will only fit a 36" set. But I want a much large screen for my living room.
The TV set dynamics are vastly different from computers, yet even within the 3 very common notebook display sizes I can add an external display from any number of vendors for any number of display needs.
I've asked this before and have never gotten a reply. If anyone has a an argument as to why Apple would make 1 (or even a couple) of very limited display sizes with built-in AppleTV hardware that can't be changed unless you replace the entire unit is better for consumers and more profitable for Apple than licensing and working with vendors to supply a better interface for their AppleTV tech I'd love to hear it.
Apple can't even update their own displays on a regaulr basis. Personally, I think Apple is trying to find a midle ground between a separate set top box and making a TV.
I think you've got to question what they could do that would be radically different. Mobile phones were a pretty low margin business until Apple came along and in truth, the PC market is pathetically low margin, yet Apple manage to make better margins that everyone else.
If they could find a way to resolve the problem of the cable companies having a stranglehold over set top boxes, they could do something special. I've thought for a long time that one of the smaller players in the TV market (I'm thinking US only here) like Dish Network could make a huge leap if they got on board with Apple and had them do their DVR/set-top box, and had that included into a TV. Much like they did with AT&T, there were a number of things that the mobile phone companies weren't doing that are now standard, because Apple pushed AT&T to make changes to their network to suit a better Apple made product.
Either way, I would love to see an Apple TV. I agree with all the arguments that it's a difficult market to get into, but at the same time, I'm looking for a new TV now and while the picture quality of most is excellent, the units themselves look shit. They're all dull black boxes, in the same way PC's used to be dull beige boxes.
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one. It seems that some see Apple as the company that can do no wrong which is understandable since they have enjoyed a string of blockbuster products.
You make a great point about how low the margins are in the PC business however as I pointed out, Apple started in this business a while ago. I don't believe the smartphone business was low margin (ask Nokia, RIM). Let's not forget that the iPhone owes its success to the iPod. Apple worked with Motorola on that ugly ROKR phone which gave them enough knowledge to launch their own smartphone...
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here...
The living room is a tough battle ground. If you look at a company like Sony which builds TVs, sells numerous gaming consoles and even possesses amazing content (a movie studio and music label) then you realize that it is hard to pull off. They have all the pieces of the puzzle and cannot even offer an integrated solution.
But then again, their management is FUBAR...
Here's a solid prediction: Whatever Apple decides, it will surprise just about everyone.
Interesting. I like the idea personally but I doubt that a top tier TV manufacturer like Samsung or Sony will be licensing Apple's Airplay.
Why not? Sony sells several products with iPod interfaces and both companies value feature count.
Keep in mind that Samsung makes as much or more money as an Apple supplier than the manufacturer of Samsung products...
Has anyone been to an electronics store lately?? There are hundreds of different products all varying in size of panels, LCD/Plasma/OLED, contrast, luminosity, darkness, sharpness, etc...
Ok I give up. With all the responses I got, I am starting to believe that many people would actually care for an Apple TV (yes the panel, not just the set top box) if only for aesthetic reasons. There is no arguing that Apple designs beautiful products but they will not market a car or fridge just because they can design a gorgeous one. It seems that some see Apple as the company that can do no wrong which is understandable since they have enjoyed a string of blockbuster products.
You make a great point about how low the margins are in the PC business however as I pointed out, Apple started in this business a while ago. I don't believe the smartphone business was low margin (ask Nokia, RIM). Let's not forget that the iPhone owes its success to the iPod. Apple worked with Motorola on that ugly ROKR phone which gave them enough knowledge to launch their own smartphone...
As for your comment about the cable companies, they have no incentive in changing the rules of the game. If Apple wants to succeed in the living room, they should bypass cable companies or render them obsolete:
1) offer content that rivals cable companies (via subscription based apps on AppleTV perhaps or more content on iTunes). A subscription model in iTunes maybe?
2) make is easy to consume such content: on-demand, instant on la Netflix
3) be serious about gaming. Not easy. It took Microsoft years and billions of dollars in lost. Apple has a lot of momentum with iOS, they can open up AppleTV and allow developers to create games designed for the TV (not via Airplay from an iOS device). Although the controller could be an iPhone/iPod/iPad as someone pointed out here...
The living room is a tough battle ground. If you look at a company like Sony which builds TVs, sells numerous gaming consoles and even possesses amazing content (a movie studio and music label) then you realize that it is hard to pull off. They have all the pieces of the puzzle and cannot even offer an integrated solution.
But then again, their management is FUBAR...
Sony is amazingly inept at understanding their customers. They are also fine with suing them and putting their own viruses on music CDs. Sony makes a few good, even great products. They are simply a train wreck of an organization. No leadership, no vision, and no clue.
And yes, even though we are talking about download TV, you couldn't expect such a TV to have no tuner at all, unless the tuner gets relegated to a settop box. This isn't going to happen. Companies such as Philips that aren't exactly trying to play the Apple game (indeed, they completely ignore Apple or at least they always seem to include Windows-specific incompatibilities in their designs) won't comply.
2. The LCD screen market is evolving so quickly and the variety of models to please a large enough audience is so large that Apple would spend an inexorable amount of resources to get the job done. In fact the Apple TV is so nice because it addresses one particular functionality very well, with the exclusion of terrestrial or sattelite TV tuners. (It would be nice though, if it were easier to let the Apple TV coexist with other settop boxes)
3. In its quest for the best quality products, Apple's prices for the screens may be higher, i.e., less competitive.
1) No other manufacturer is selling just one good model of TV;
2) No other manufacturer provides a clean, 6-button remote interface.