Gene Munster is notoriously inaccurate. As a matter of fact, if Munster says something is likely to happen, it is worth betting against his prediction.
Thus, since Munster says that Apple will produce television sets, Apple will not.
The television set market is relatively low margin, making it even more unlikely that Apple would jump into this sector.
Gene Munster is notoriously inaccurate. As a matter of fact, if Munster says something is likely to happen, it is worth betting against his prediction.
Thus, since Munster says that Apple will produce television sets, Apple will not.
The television set market is relatively low margin, making it even more unlikely that Apple would jump into this sector.
So don't listen to Gene, listen to me. Apple will release a TV. Its going to happen. And they're going to turn the TV industry on its ear the same way they blew up the mobile phone market.
most TV's have glossy screens. I was limited to 2 brands when I was shopping for mine last year.
I found zero plasma's with a matte screen. only Sony and Samsung make matte (LED/LCD @52"
I find glossy to be superior (for laptops) and glare isn't a huge problem because you can adjust the angle easily on a portable, but for my TV, glossy was a no-go because my living room has 3 5'X5' East facing windows.
back on topic - if AAPL is going to sell a set, there better be something hugely compelling that differentiates them from the others.. $2k for a 50+" screen seems a bit high - there better be something in there that makes it really special. Since apple is (trying to) get others to license AirPlay, that can't be the only thing.
does apple have the mojo to build something similar to GoogleTV but with a better UI, and more content (meaning those sources which blocked GTV?).
does apple have the mojo to build something similar to GoogleTV but with a better UI, and more content (meaning those sources which blocked GTV?).
they've certainly got the mojo, it's just a matter of getting content providers on board. If they offered ala carte access to various networks via an AppStore subscription-like process, they would make a killing. Two or three bucks per channel, per month. That's more than the cable networks currently get from the cable companies (except HBO, etc). Apple could do something quite compelling here, I'm very interested to see what they come up with.
Can't Apple just license AirPlay (with video) to TV makers. That way people are encouraged to buy lots more lovely high margin iDevices.
Either that, or continue their partnership with LG. Take whatever panels and receivers LG are making, slap it in an Apple design case and an inbuilt Apple TV. Bundle an Apple remote and job done. Almost zero R&D effort for Apple (Jony Ive could knock up a TV case in an afternoon!), and piggy back of LG's efforts in TV localisation.
Apple could forgo the TV margin on the basis that the TV is all part of the Apple ecosystem so encourages sales of iDevices and Apps (I'm assuming Apple will eventually get around to making an App Store for the Apple TV).
EDIT: A new subs based business model for TV shows would be nice too. But I see that as a benefit for the whole ecosystem, and not predicated on Apple releasing a standalone TV.
There are scores of TV manufacturers and prices have been on a constant decline for years as the products become more and more commoditized.
The same was true for smart phones.
Apple already orders the huge amount of LCD for iDevices and Macs. If they add LCDs for TVs to their orders, they can dictate very low prices for LCDs (the most expensive part in TVs).
Apple can add such unique features that other companies would have problem adding:
- 4k resolution: four times HDTV (double horizontal and vertical resolution) = "retina TV". This is would be very epensive for other companies, but Apple can leverage their huge volumes (Macs + TVs). They can also make hardware upressing hdtv -> 4k. They already have cameras in iPhones that make 4k+ pics. Now you have to print them to see the whole resolution. With 4k TVs you would be able to see all details on the large screen - priceless.
- integration with iOS devices, Macs and future Apple online services.
Can't Apple just license AirPlay (with video) to TV makers. That way people are encouraged to buy lots more lovely high margin iDevices.
Either that, or continue their partnership with LG. Take whatever panels and receivers LG are making, slap it in an Apple design case and an inbuilt Apple TV. Bundle an Apple remote and job done. Almost zero R&D effort for Apple (Jony Ive could knock up a TV case in an afternoon!), and piggy back of LG's efforts in TV localisation.
Apple could forgo the TV margin on the basis that the TV is all part of the Apple ecosystem so encourages sales of iDevices and Apps (I'm assuming Apple will eventually get around to making an App Store for the Apple TV).
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
I don't think it will happen but honestly I don't care either way. TVs are boring, even ones made by Apple.
The only reason I can see for going the whole hog is that they want a camera in the correct position, for FaceTime or some sort of Kinect thing.
Or... it's related to the new server farm and streaming video. For copy protection reasons the studios will only give them 1080p if the TV is an integrated unit, and therefore somehow less hackable.
5 remotes (even a universal remote), clunky interfaces, way to much crap wires and boxes, poor design in general, complex setup and UI, complicated remotes, no content built-in. Etc. Etc. The TV business is in as bad shape as phones were before Apple came along. Not to mention, Apple as well as anyone knows if they don't do this someone else will come along and do it instead if them. And eat their lunch in the process.
Agreed. But I think the difference in this being a new TV on the market with a few interesting features -- FaceTime, AirPlay, TV-specific apps, easy interaction with other Apple devices -- and being a game changer is whether Apple can convince Comcast/NBCU and the other networks that providing currently airing content for a primarily subscription-based package is the way to go.
Apple has to convince Comcast/NBCU that the package would replace 100% of their current per-subscriber revenue and give them a revenue upside for specialty apps and premium content.
I don't know about that idea. The HDTV market is already beyond saturated. It would make no sense for Apple to compete in the current HDTV market, and the current definition of "smart TV" won't help any. Apple would have to re-define what an HDTV is, just like they re-defined what a cell phone is.
Here's some ideas, and I'm not sure if this would be enough to tackle the HDTV market:
1. Yes, it would have to be "smart". Basically it would need to have an integrated computer - ARM platform running iOS, and tie into the whole iTunes ecosystem.
2. The "remote" would be an iPad, iPod, or iPhone, sold separately of course. The included 'Apple remote' would handle basic functions for those odd people who don't already own an iDevice.
3. The screens would need to be 2k resolution. Everyone and their dog does HD, Apple would have to up the ante.
4. Two models - a ~45" and a ~65" model. The ~50" size is a waste of time.
5. Apple's TV would need to utilize the iDevice interface to also control the rest of the components of someone's entertainment system (surround sound, dvd player, etc.) finally putting to rest the sea lost remote controls. Use that iDevice interface to the max!
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
Licensing AirPlay with video to TV makers is really no different to licensing the 30-pin connector for the myriad of dock makers. Or indeed, any of the other 'Made for iPod/iPhone' kit out there. The fact that 95% (stat pulled from my arse) of all docks, cases, cars, etc. only really work with iPods is part of the reason the iPod commands such market dominance.
As long as the AirPlay experience is good (and why wouldn't it be -- it's essentially initiated by the iDevice); licensing it will only help Apple sell more hardware.
I've never owned a tv. Plenty monitors and a projector though.
It is hard to say why they would bother. Phone sure, apple had to damage the iPod market cause someone else would have. Tablet sure, it is the -personal- computer.
As others have said, the AppleTV takes over any TV it gets plugged into. Making it better only does it more so. Making a TV... they would need to enter under the market not above it to be disruptive.
Post PC... well if they made a really smart monitor sized device that was the desk bound variant of the iPad, a sub mac if you will, not a 50" behemoth more a 17 - 24 inch unit that used a keyboard and it had a unique method of multitasking media. Something aimed at school/dorm/2nd tv in the house. It let's you connect media input devices to it, players/set tops/consoles. So it busts up the smaller TV market, demoralizes the chrome OS potential market, defends the demise of the mac desktop and attacks the cheapo windows $500 boxes.
Such a device could see broad use. The Apple TV becomes the uber cheap BYO mac mini version, the iPad the macbook version and this other thing the iMac version. With their purchasing power in screens they could really crunch the price and leveraging the A5 across iPod, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and this thing would allow them an unmatched economy of scale.
Now perhaps that is something they would do. 50" multi thousand dollar TV's in a volatile format war (3d variants etc) with a muddle of standards to support and a slow re-purchase cycle I highly doubt.
This thing will range from $599 to $999.
The macs will stay as the production/performance devices with the iOS devices as the personal/affordable range. The 2nd cycle would be complete.
The analysts will be all blown away like the rumor mill of the $999 iPad. Now it will be the $2000 tv rumor that isn't that wipes another sector away.
"They" said the retail stores were a stupid idea and would fail.
"They" said the iPad would be an epic fail.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see an Apple HDTV that's basically an iOS device with a really big screen and a digital tuner. And when it shows up it will also be declared DOA. After it takes off wildly we will then be treated to Android HDTVs by Asus, Acer, HTC, and all the other copycat followers only theirs will be "better" because they're open and run Android. A year later Microsoft will annouce a WM7 HDTV. The tech pundits will be predicting Apple HDTV killers are just around the corner.
Comments
Thus, since Munster says that Apple will produce television sets, Apple will not.
The television set market is relatively low margin, making it even more unlikely that Apple would jump into this sector.
Gene Munster is notoriously inaccurate. As a matter of fact, if Munster says something is likely to happen, it is worth betting against his prediction.
Thus, since Munster says that Apple will produce television sets, Apple will not.
The television set market is relatively low margin, making it even more unlikely that Apple would jump into this sector.
So don't listen to Gene, listen to me. Apple will release a TV. Its going to happen. And they're going to turn the TV industry on its ear the same way they blew up the mobile phone market.
With a big glossy reflective screen...oh boy!
most TV's have glossy screens. I was limited to 2 brands when I was shopping for mine last year.
I found zero plasma's with a matte screen. only Sony and Samsung make matte (LED/LCD @52"
I find glossy to be superior (for laptops) and glare isn't a huge problem because you can adjust the angle easily on a portable, but for my TV, glossy was a no-go because my living room has 3 5'X5' East facing windows.
back on topic - if AAPL is going to sell a set, there better be something hugely compelling that differentiates them from the others.. $2k for a 50+" screen seems a bit high - there better be something in there that makes it really special. Since apple is (trying to) get others to license AirPlay, that can't be the only thing.
does apple have the mojo to build something similar to GoogleTV but with a better UI, and more content (meaning those sources which blocked GTV?).
Yeah, imagine watching 640 x 480 pixels in all it's splendor on a HDTV...
I am sure it will be as wildly successful as their AppleTV.
Nice sarcasm, smartass. Even if they only sell a million TVs at $1500 each, that's $1.5b in additional revenue.
does apple have the mojo to build something similar to GoogleTV but with a better UI, and more content (meaning those sources which blocked GTV?).
they've certainly got the mojo, it's just a matter of getting content providers on board. If they offered ala carte access to various networks via an AppStore subscription-like process, they would make a killing. Two or three bucks per channel, per month. That's more than the cable networks currently get from the cable companies (except HBO, etc). Apple could do something quite compelling here, I'm very interested to see what they come up with.
Either that, or continue their partnership with LG. Take whatever panels and receivers LG are making, slap it in an Apple design case and an inbuilt Apple TV. Bundle an Apple remote and job done. Almost zero R&D effort for Apple (Jony Ive could knock up a TV case in an afternoon!), and piggy back of LG's efforts in TV localisation.
Apple could forgo the TV margin on the basis that the TV is all part of the Apple ecosystem so encourages sales of iDevices and Apps (I'm assuming Apple will eventually get around to making an App Store for the Apple TV).
EDIT: A new subs based business model for TV shows would be nice too. But I see that as a benefit for the whole ecosystem, and not predicated on Apple releasing a standalone TV.
There are scores of TV manufacturers and prices have been on a constant decline for years as the products become more and more commoditized.
The same was true for smart phones.
Apple already orders the huge amount of LCD for iDevices and Macs. If they add LCDs for TVs to their orders, they can dictate very low prices for LCDs (the most expensive part in TVs).
Apple can add such unique features that other companies would have problem adding:
- 4k resolution: four times HDTV (double horizontal and vertical resolution) = "retina TV". This is would be very epensive for other companies, but Apple can leverage their huge volumes (Macs + TVs). They can also make hardware upressing hdtv -> 4k. They already have cameras in iPhones that make 4k+ pics. Now you have to print them to see the whole resolution. With 4k TVs you would be able to see all details on the large screen - priceless.
- integration with iOS devices, Macs and future Apple online services.
Can't Apple just license AirPlay (with video) to TV makers. That way people are encouraged to buy lots more lovely high margin iDevices.
Either that, or continue their partnership with LG. Take whatever panels and receivers LG are making, slap it in an Apple design case and an inbuilt Apple TV. Bundle an Apple remote and job done. Almost zero R&D effort for Apple (Jony Ive could knock up a TV case in an afternoon!), and piggy back of LG's efforts in TV localisation.
Apple could forgo the TV margin on the basis that the TV is all part of the Apple ecosystem so encourages sales of iDevices and Apps (I'm assuming Apple will eventually get around to making an App Store for the Apple TV).
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
The only reason I can see for going the whole hog is that they want a camera in the correct position, for FaceTime or some sort of Kinect thing.
Or... it's related to the new server farm and streaming video. For copy protection reasons the studios will only give them 1080p if the TV is an integrated unit, and therefore somehow less hackable.
I dunno, it's all just speculamation.
5 remotes (even a universal remote), clunky interfaces, way to much crap wires and boxes, poor design in general, complex setup and UI, complicated remotes, no content built-in. Etc. Etc. The TV business is in as bad shape as phones were before Apple came along. Not to mention, Apple as well as anyone knows if they don't do this someone else will come along and do it instead if them. And eat their lunch in the process.
Agreed. But I think the difference in this being a new TV on the market with a few interesting features -- FaceTime, AirPlay, TV-specific apps, easy interaction with other Apple devices -- and being a game changer is whether Apple can convince Comcast/NBCU and the other networks that providing currently airing content for a primarily subscription-based package is the way to go.
Apple has to convince Comcast/NBCU that the package would replace 100% of their current per-subscriber revenue and give them a revenue upside for specialty apps and premium content.
Here's some ideas, and I'm not sure if this would be enough to tackle the HDTV market:
1. Yes, it would have to be "smart". Basically it would need to have an integrated computer - ARM platform running iOS, and tie into the whole iTunes ecosystem.
2. The "remote" would be an iPad, iPod, or iPhone, sold separately of course. The included 'Apple remote' would handle basic functions for those odd people who don't already own an iDevice.
3. The screens would need to be 2k resolution. Everyone and their dog does HD, Apple would have to up the ante.
4. Two models - a ~45" and a ~65" model. The ~50" size is a waste of time.
5. Apple's TV would need to utilize the iDevice interface to also control the rest of the components of someone's entertainment system (surround sound, dvd player, etc.) finally putting to rest the sea lost remote controls. Use that iDevice interface to the max!
apple is moving further and further away from being dependent on anybody else for their own success. They will develop and manufacture their own TV set, no partners required.
Licensing AirPlay with video to TV makers is really no different to licensing the 30-pin connector for the myriad of dock makers. Or indeed, any of the other 'Made for iPod/iPhone' kit out there. The fact that 95% (stat pulled from my arse) of all docks, cases, cars, etc. only really work with iPods is part of the reason the iPod commands such market dominance.
As long as the AirPlay experience is good (and why wouldn't it be -- it's essentially initiated by the iDevice); licensing it will only help Apple sell more hardware.
It is hard to say why they would bother. Phone sure, apple had to damage the iPod market cause someone else would have. Tablet sure, it is the -personal- computer.
As others have said, the AppleTV takes over any TV it gets plugged into. Making it better only does it more so. Making a TV... they would need to enter under the market not above it to be disruptive.
Post PC... well if they made a really smart monitor sized device that was the desk bound variant of the iPad, a sub mac if you will, not a 50" behemoth more a 17 - 24 inch unit that used a keyboard and it had a unique method of multitasking media. Something aimed at school/dorm/2nd tv in the house. It let's you connect media input devices to it, players/set tops/consoles. So it busts up the smaller TV market, demoralizes the chrome OS potential market, defends the demise of the mac desktop and attacks the cheapo windows $500 boxes.
Such a device could see broad use. The Apple TV becomes the uber cheap BYO mac mini version, the iPad the macbook version and this other thing the iMac version. With their purchasing power in screens they could really crunch the price and leveraging the A5 across iPod, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV and this thing would allow them an unmatched economy of scale.
Now perhaps that is something they would do. 50" multi thousand dollar TV's in a volatile format war (3d variants etc) with a muddle of standards to support and a slow re-purchase cycle I highly doubt.
This thing will range from $599 to $999.
The macs will stay as the production/performance devices with the iOS devices as the personal/affordable range. The 2nd cycle would be complete.
The analysts will be all blown away like the rumor mill of the $999 iPad. Now it will be the $2000 tv rumor that isn't that wipes another sector away.
The hdtv market is low margin.
What can Apple really add to a tv setup that the ATV doesn't or the hdtv manufacturers do not?
Aluminum frame? Tiny aluminum remote with too few buttons?
If Apple makes a TV then they've jumped the shark.
Their TV won't have a camera.
Well definately not the first iteration. The second will have a VGA camera, then the next 720... then the next... well you get the picture(hey a pun
"They" said the iPod would fail.
"They" said the iPhone would fail.
"They" said the retail stores were a stupid idea and would fail.
"They" said the iPad would be an epic fail.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see an Apple HDTV that's basically an iOS device with a really big screen and a digital tuner. And when it shows up it will also be declared DOA. After it takes off wildly we will then be treated to Android HDTVs by Asus, Acer, HTC, and all the other copycat followers only theirs will be "better" because they're open and run Android. A year later Microsoft will annouce a WM7 HDTV. The tech pundits will be predicting Apple HDTV killers are just around the corner.
Nice sarcasm, smartass. Even if they only sell a million TVs at $1500 each, that's $1.5b in additional revenue.
At what profit margin?