And one I think about is obsolescence. iPhones turn over in 2-3 years, Mac in 3-5 years. A TV can easily be a 10 year purchase. It's safe to say that the guts that drive the TV would be obsolete in no time since it would be tracking iPhone/iPad technology. It's possible to have the guts be replaceable/upgradable but making it cost effective is another matter.
It's less of an issue than you might think, the Play Station 3 is now 5 years old and going strong, we don't expect a full refresh for another few years. The playstation-2 is still in production. If the need is to track iPad performance then that's pretty easy, you can supply a desktop experience that will not be matched in palmtop for years to come simply because power isn't a constraint on the desktop.
Existing HDTVs don't totally suck, and aren't perceived to by the general public. It's not a market crying out to be redefined.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
You're right, actually they said that Apple couldn't succeed with smartphones because the existing smartphones were too good.
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
My point here is that it's entirely possible for people to be completely wrong about the potential for a disruptive new entrant into the market. The smartphone market had two at once which left it unrecognisable. I personally can't see a way for Apple to transform the HDTV market, but that doesn't mean that no such way exists.
Hear, hear. I think it would've been impossible for any of us to predict the exact shape and content of the iPhone prior to launch, maybe because we didn't think certain aspects were possible, and maybe because it did some things we weren't asking for. But just look at the cell phone space 5 years later and how the whole landscape has changed, how much dominance Apple has within it and how much profit they generate without even selling multiple or low-end models.
I'm pretty sure that any specific prediction I make about the Apple HDTV will be wrong (but I've tried anyway) in terms of exact hardware specs, but that's not what's important here.
I just don't understand why people can't see that maybe Apple has been building their whole corporate career for this new device. Has Apple not treated the computer as a very personal experience since the beginning? Did the Mac not try to begin to converge the PC with the appliance? Are we not at the start of some kind of post-pc world where every device has the potential for powerful computing and a distinct lack-of-need for Windows as its software foundation?
I am certain that when this TV makes it's debut it will be very attention getting and very disruptive. They are going to suck up all the oxygen in that space.
I am certain that when this TV makes it's debut it will be very attention getting and very disruptive. They are going to suck up all the oxygen in that space.
I don't know if their next big move is a TV, but they clearly need another big move. They're accumulating cash at a tremendous rate and they don't seem to want to just start paying a dividend or buying back shares - they want to stay a growth stock.
Once they've locked down the tablet market and expanded down-market in phones there isn't an obvious next move for them - so whatever comes after that will have to be something that isn't obvious. We're talking 2014 or later here, but they'll be working on the ideas right now.
One option would be a head-on competitor for playstation/xbox/wii. Gaming is a historic weakness for Apple, but a console could allow them to transform it into a strength.
There's a fundamental problem with entering the Car electronics market for Apple, and that's control over the product. Ultimately they would be a bolt on to somebody else's hardware, they would risk brand contamination if the car-maker delivered a bad car and they wouldn't have the relationship with the consumer.
Apple HATES not having control over the relationship, and it HATES not having control over the experience. I'd say it's even less likely than an Apple HDTV.
The control issue is a big one, but I don't think it's a deal-killer. They continue to wrestle with ATT, but they certainly can't regret making it--there was no one else out there biting. I think they would find getting a quality experience out of Toyota to be easier than getting one from those guys.
The thing is, an auto manufacturer has every reason to make this work--there's no downside for them, no risk besides hardware cost and licensing (and that is scaleable), and the upside is huge.
On the other hand, the cable and media companies are terrified of Apple, and are prone to look at any effort by Jobs & Co as the beginning of the end. If Apple successfully took over the living room, then Comcast's cable television business would plummet at the same time that it cost them more bandwidth on the internet side. They're already dealing with everyone cutting the cable. It's in their own best interest to make an Apple TV impossible.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
It's not all about margin - dollars matter too. How many dollars per unit does Apple make on ATV? Maybe $25. How many dollars per unit could they make at the high end of the HDTV market? Maybe $300 or $400. In a vastly larger market.
CableCard and/or AllVid could solve the set top box issue.
I still don't buy this rumour without some level of heavy licensing to current TV manufacturers, but this new AirPlay ad caught my eye. The AppleTV is easy to miss which makes me wonder if something more grand is in the works.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
At the same time, there were daily mockups and rumors of what an Apple Phone would look like for years before it was released. It would do this, it would do that. Some of them got kind of close to the final product, some were way off. That's because on a daily basis, people were frustrated with how their existing cell phones worked, and dreamt up ways to improve the experience, then projected those dreams onto Apple.
I haven't seen anyone explain what Apple HDTV would revolutionize. I'll grant you that my imagination is lacking, but I don't see where anyone else has mocked it up either. The real challenge to the end user is managing content from multiple inputs--cable, internet, over the air, etc. That's the fragmentation that Jobso has already pointed out as a dealkiller.
You realize that people said pretty much the same thing back in 2007 about handsets right? ....it seems likely to own the tablet market. Where does it go next? What possible business can it invest in that will materially affect the bottom line?
The reason this rumour keeps popping up again and again is because the HDTV market is big enough to make an impact, and fits vaguely into Apple's core competency.
Making or licensing an expanded Apple TV card to HDTV set mfgs solves the issue of opening the HDTV market -- allowing them to sell the razor blades (content) rather than low margin razors (the large HDTV sets)
The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
No - that's YOUR statement. In your fervour you cannot see beyond your own argument and completely miss my point. I am not saying it will happen, in fact I pretty much doubt it but I am not as sure as you... obviously.
You are equally self assured that Apple will not produce an HDTV as you are that a simple hw update to the existing aTV can cause it to 'singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare'. Apple should hire you.
You are equally self assured that Apple will not produce an HDTV as you are that a simple hw update to the existing aTV can cause it to 'singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare'. Apple should hire you.
A5 means 1080p out. iOS 5 adding "Channels" gives it software.
I still don't buy this rumour without some level of heavy licensing to current TV manufacturers, but this new AirPlay ad caught my eye. The AppleTV is easy to miss which makes me wonder if something more grand is in the works.
My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of issues, I know, but nothing would better signal Apple's arrival into the living room than an Apple branded screen. The virtues of iCloud and thus the rest of the Apple eco-system would potentially become a much easier sell to a much broader audience. I don't necessarily think an Apple branded screen would be all about margins. A departure for sure, but so was the iPod and look where that took us.
The control issue is a big one, but I don't think it's a deal-killer. They continue to wrestle with ATT, but they certainly can't regret making it--there was no one else out there biting.
Remember how radical that deal with AT&T was though? Apple were able to sell the phones in their own stores. Apple were able to control the OS completely and to provide OS updates without any interference. Apple were rumoured to even get a kickback from operator's fees. Apple completely redefined the OEM/Carrier relationship with the iPhone.
2. If Apple did redesign the UI, do you really think they'd "play nice" with Pandora, Netflix, Amazon and all the other services that Apple seeks to replace?
3. Even if the TV's own interface is redesigned, that still leaves the interface forced upon us by the cable and satellite companies and as Steve said, there's no way Apple can control (or replace) those set top boxes because it's a very decentralized market and customers are forced to use the supplied box (in spite of the legislated effort to push Cable Card technology.)
These would be the two big ones for me, even if Apple were to make a TV. Which I just don't see happending anytime soon.
I spend most of the time in front of my TV watching TV. There is no interaction or UI to improve upon here. You sit and you watch. As #3 above points out, when you are selecting which channel to watch, you are stuck with whatever the cable/satellite company provides for you. TiVo has tried for years to provide a better alternative UI. Could Apple do better than TiVo? Probably. But dealing with the providers would be an ever bigger "bag of hurt" than blu-ray is. Just how many different versions of TVs would Apple need to manufacturer to work with all the different cable and satellite providers? And even though cable providers are required by law to offer interoperability (ie, CableCards), satellite provides are not similarly required.
Sure, you could get your content online, but that is still a very immature market. Apple's offerings wouldn't fit the needs of 99% of the population. And would you really trust that an Apple HDTV would have access to all the other online content services, current and future (#2 above)? Most Apple devices are "disposable" on a 2-4 year time frame. Most people expect their TVs to work for 5-10 years. Maybe an Apple HDTV would have Netflix at first, but what guarantee is there a future TV OS update doesn't remove it? Gambling $100 on an AppleTV isn't a big deal. Gambling $1000+ on an Apple HDTV, and that it will still access the content I want/need 5 years from now? Not sure I'd want to take that risk. Give me a cheap box I can replace over the years as my needs and the techology changes.
Start from scratch to redesign a product they have no experience with, in a low-margin market? Wouldn't make sense to me, but what would I know? IMO, better to work with a proven, experienced HDTV manufacturer.
By that reasoning, Apple should have partnered with RIM or Motorola instead of designing a mobile phone from scratch on their own. Actually, they did just that at first with the Rokkr phone which was, predictably, a major flop. Then they created the iPhone on their own and changed the face of mobile.
Apple could own the TV market. The limitation is not technical in nature. The issue is that the cable companies control the content and the pipe to the customers, and whatever solution Apple could bring to the table would replace everything the cable companies currently control (cable boxes, UI, remotes, DVR, PPV, etc.)
For this to happen, Apple would need to come up with a business proposal that would sufficiently benefit the cable companies (doesn't seem likely) or they'd have to come up with a very clever way to circumvent them entirely.
At the same time, there were daily mockups and rumors of what an Apple Phone would look like for years before it was released. It would do this, it would do that. Some of them got kind of close to the final product, some were way off. That's because on a daily basis, people were frustrated with how their existing cell phones worked, and dreamt up ways to improve the experience, then projected those dreams onto Apple.
I haven't seen anyone explain what Apple HDTV would revolutionize. I'll grant you that my imagination is lacking, but I don't see where anyone else has mocked it up either. The real challenge to the end user is managing content from multiple inputs--cable, internet, over the air, etc. That's the fragmentation that Jobso has already pointed out as a dealkiller.
I'll take a swing at it?.
1) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer "TV + iCloud" TVs to vendors. This opens up Apple's potential market to multiple companies, with multiple panel ties and even more sizes without the need for them to carry a single one in their relatively small stores.
2) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer ""TV + iCloud"-compatible devices to vendors. TV run the same way you'd expect them to, with all their standard I/O and UIs, but have a special I/O for a simple plug-in AppleTC device that will allow the TV to use that for its UI and attach to the back of the TV (even connecting to it's IR sensor).
3) Apple creates a new AppleTV to sell in their storers that exceeds $99 in price. Something along the lines of what a cable box or HD TiVo sells for at full price. THis new box is the receiver of all your other devices with all their HDMI, Coax, and optical cables going into the back of this device. THe TV is just a dumb monitor, set to HDMI and all other switching between your TiVo, Cable (which .can use a cable card that is plugged into this AppleTV), and Blu-ray player are all switched from the AppleTV interface, not the TV.
Making or licensing an expanded Apple TV card to HDTV set mfgs solves the issue of opening the HDTV market -- allowing them to sell the razor blades (content) rather than low margin razors (the large HDTV sets)
First off content isn't necessarily high margin, in fact by Apple's standards it's low margin. The existing iTunes business exists to sell devices, not the other way around. An Apple TV card introduces the same issues that made the ROKR a failure, no connection to the consumer and no control over the experience.
The existing Apple TV doesn't exist in order to sell content really, it exists to round out the platform ecosystem.
1) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer "TV + iCloud" TVs to vendors. This opens up Apple's potential market to multiple companies, with multiple panel ties and even more sizes without the need for them to carry a single one in their relatively small stores.
2) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer ""TV + iCloud"-compatible devices to vendors. TV run the same way you'd expect them to, with all their standard I/O and UIs, but have a special I/O for a simple plug-in AppleTC device that will allow the TV to use that for its UI and attach to the back of the TV (even connecting to it's IR sensor).
3) Apple creates a new AppleTV to sell in their storers that exceeds $99 in price. Something along the lines of what a cable box or HD TiVo sells for at full price. THis new box is the receiver of all your other devices with all their HDMI, Coax, and optical cables going into the back of this device. THe TV is just a dumb monitor, set to HDMI and all other switching between your TiVo, Cable (which .can use a cable card that is plugged into this AppleTV), and Blu-ray player are all switched from the AppleTV interface, not the TV.
Are those enough ideas?
Yeah, sure. Those are great ideas, and I'd buy at least one of those variations, and seem like logical extensions of the Apple TV model. But they don't involve Apple manufacturing and selling big flat panels of glass that hang on your living room wall. I thought that was what folks were talking about with an Apple HDTV.
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
What if they just added the AppleTV hardware to the inside of the monitor they already make now? It already has a better picture and far, far better sound than any of the plasma TVs I've been looking over this week. If it was 42" instead of 27" it would be a no brainer and exactly what I'm looking for and Apple would still be making a healthy margin. They could also advertise it as an "all-in-one" in that you wouldn't have to buy a stereo and speakers to make the thing useful.
A decent 42" flatscreen plasma is currently 1500 or 2000 in my area and this monitor is just over a thousand. If they could make the screen bigger and only increase the price by 50% it would be right in the ballpark of the TVs I've been looking at, be far better quality, and still Apple would have a good margin.
I'm not sure they are going to do this at all and if I had to bet I would bet they don't get into TVs but I think it's far more likely and more possible than you are willing to admit perhaps.
Comments
And one I think about is obsolescence. iPhones turn over in 2-3 years, Mac in 3-5 years. A TV can easily be a 10 year purchase. It's safe to say that the guts that drive the TV would be obsolete in no time since it would be tracking iPhone/iPad technology. It's possible to have the guts be replaceable/upgradable but making it cost effective is another matter.
It's less of an issue than you might think, the Play Station 3 is now 5 years old and going strong, we don't expect a full refresh for another few years. The playstation-2 is still in production. If the need is to track iPad performance then that's pretty easy, you can supply a desktop experience that will not be matched in palmtop for years to come simply because power isn't a constraint on the desktop.
Existing HDTVs don't totally suck, and aren't perceived to by the general public. It's not a market crying out to be redefined.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
You're right, actually they said that Apple couldn't succeed with smartphones because the existing smartphones were too good.
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
(from cnet )
My point here is that it's entirely possible for people to be completely wrong about the potential for a disruptive new entrant into the market. The smartphone market had two at once which left it unrecognisable. I personally can't see a way for Apple to transform the HDTV market, but that doesn't mean that no such way exists.
Hear, hear. I think it would've been impossible for any of us to predict the exact shape and content of the iPhone prior to launch, maybe because we didn't think certain aspects were possible, and maybe because it did some things we weren't asking for. But just look at the cell phone space 5 years later and how the whole landscape has changed, how much dominance Apple has within it and how much profit they generate without even selling multiple or low-end models.
I'm pretty sure that any specific prediction I make about the Apple HDTV will be wrong (but I've tried anyway) in terms of exact hardware specs, but that's not what's important here.
I just don't understand why people can't see that maybe Apple has been building their whole corporate career for this new device. Has Apple not treated the computer as a very personal experience since the beginning? Did the Mac not try to begin to converge the PC with the appliance? Are we not at the start of some kind of post-pc world where every device has the potential for powerful computing and a distinct lack-of-need for Windows as its software foundation?
I am certain that when this TV makes it's debut it will be very attention getting and very disruptive. They are going to suck up all the oxygen in that space.
I am certain that when this TV makes it's debut it will be very attention getting and very disruptive. They are going to suck up all the oxygen in that space.
I don't know if their next big move is a TV, but they clearly need another big move. They're accumulating cash at a tremendous rate and they don't seem to want to just start paying a dividend or buying back shares - they want to stay a growth stock.
Once they've locked down the tablet market and expanded down-market in phones there isn't an obvious next move for them - so whatever comes after that will have to be something that isn't obvious. We're talking 2014 or later here, but they'll be working on the ideas right now.
One option would be a head-on competitor for playstation/xbox/wii. Gaming is a historic weakness for Apple, but a console could allow them to transform it into a strength.
There's a fundamental problem with entering the Car electronics market for Apple, and that's control over the product. Ultimately they would be a bolt on to somebody else's hardware, they would risk brand contamination if the car-maker delivered a bad car and they wouldn't have the relationship with the consumer.
Apple HATES not having control over the relationship, and it HATES not having control over the experience. I'd say it's even less likely than an Apple HDTV.
The control issue is a big one, but I don't think it's a deal-killer. They continue to wrestle with ATT, but they certainly can't regret making it--there was no one else out there biting. I think they would find getting a quality experience out of Toyota to be easier than getting one from those guys.
The thing is, an auto manufacturer has every reason to make this work--there's no downside for them, no risk besides hardware cost and licensing (and that is scaleable), and the upside is huge.
On the other hand, the cable and media companies are terrified of Apple, and are prone to look at any effort by Jobs & Co as the beginning of the end. If Apple successfully took over the living room, then Comcast's cable television business would plummet at the same time that it cost them more bandwidth on the internet side. They're already dealing with everyone cutting the cable. It's in their own best interest to make an Apple TV impossible.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
No, they did, CNET is simply wrong.
CableCard and/or AllVid could solve the set top box issue.
I direct you to the CNET quote that I linked earlier ...
"Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people are addicted to it."
People didn't feel that smartphones sucked until Apple redefined the experience.
At the same time, there were daily mockups and rumors of what an Apple Phone would look like for years before it was released. It would do this, it would do that. Some of them got kind of close to the final product, some were way off. That's because on a daily basis, people were frustrated with how their existing cell phones worked, and dreamt up ways to improve the experience, then projected those dreams onto Apple.
I haven't seen anyone explain what Apple HDTV would revolutionize. I'll grant you that my imagination is lacking, but I don't see where anyone else has mocked it up either. The real challenge to the end user is managing content from multiple inputs--cable, internet, over the air, etc. That's the fragmentation that Jobso has already pointed out as a dealkiller.
You realize that people said pretty much the same thing back in 2007 about handsets right? ....it seems likely to own the tablet market. Where does it go next? What possible business can it invest in that will materially affect the bottom line?
The reason this rumour keeps popping up again and again is because the HDTV market is big enough to make an impact, and fits vaguely into Apple's core competency.
Making or licensing an expanded Apple TV card to HDTV set mfgs solves the issue of opening the HDTV market -- allowing them to sell the razor blades (content) rather than low margin razors (the large HDTV sets)
The statement being, "We apparently have SO much money, we're going to show you just how much money we have by wasting a ton of it to enter a market where the margins are razor-thin, nearly no profit is made, and competition is so fierce, there's absolutely no point in us being here at all when we already make a product that can singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare just by us doing a single hardware update and a moderate software update."
No - that's YOUR statement. In your fervour you cannot see beyond your own argument and completely miss my point. I am not saying it will happen, in fact I pretty much doubt it but I am not as sure as you... obviously.
You are equally self assured that Apple will not produce an HDTV as you are that a simple hw update to the existing aTV can cause it to 'singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare'. Apple should hire you.
You are equally self assured that Apple will not produce an HDTV as you are that a simple hw update to the existing aTV can cause it to 'singlehandedly grab dominant marketshare'. Apple should hire you.
A5 means 1080p out. iOS 5 adding "Channels" gives it software.
I still don't buy this rumour without some level of heavy licensing to current TV manufacturers, but this new AirPlay ad caught my eye. The AppleTV is easy to miss which makes me wonder if something more grand is in the works.
My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of issues, I know, but nothing would better signal Apple's arrival into the living room than an Apple branded screen. The virtues of iCloud and thus the rest of the Apple eco-system would potentially become a much easier sell to a much broader audience. I don't necessarily think an Apple branded screen would be all about margins. A departure for sure, but so was the iPod and look where that took us.
The control issue is a big one, but I don't think it's a deal-killer. They continue to wrestle with ATT, but they certainly can't regret making it--there was no one else out there biting.
Remember how radical that deal with AT&T was though? Apple were able to sell the phones in their own stores. Apple were able to control the OS completely and to provide OS updates without any interference. Apple were rumoured to even get a kickback from operator's fees. Apple completely redefined the OEM/Carrier relationship with the iPhone.
2. If Apple did redesign the UI, do you really think they'd "play nice" with Pandora, Netflix, Amazon and all the other services that Apple seeks to replace?
3. Even if the TV's own interface is redesigned, that still leaves the interface forced upon us by the cable and satellite companies and as Steve said, there's no way Apple can control (or replace) those set top boxes because it's a very decentralized market and customers are forced to use the supplied box (in spite of the legislated effort to push Cable Card technology.)
These would be the two big ones for me, even if Apple were to make a TV. Which I just don't see happending anytime soon.
I spend most of the time in front of my TV watching TV. There is no interaction or UI to improve upon here. You sit and you watch. As #3 above points out, when you are selecting which channel to watch, you are stuck with whatever the cable/satellite company provides for you. TiVo has tried for years to provide a better alternative UI. Could Apple do better than TiVo? Probably. But dealing with the providers would be an ever bigger "bag of hurt" than blu-ray is. Just how many different versions of TVs would Apple need to manufacturer to work with all the different cable and satellite providers? And even though cable providers are required by law to offer interoperability (ie, CableCards), satellite provides are not similarly required.
Sure, you could get your content online, but that is still a very immature market. Apple's offerings wouldn't fit the needs of 99% of the population. And would you really trust that an Apple HDTV would have access to all the other online content services, current and future (#2 above)? Most Apple devices are "disposable" on a 2-4 year time frame. Most people expect their TVs to work for 5-10 years. Maybe an Apple HDTV would have Netflix at first, but what guarantee is there a future TV OS update doesn't remove it? Gambling $100 on an AppleTV isn't a big deal. Gambling $1000+ on an Apple HDTV, and that it will still access the content I want/need 5 years from now? Not sure I'd want to take that risk. Give me a cheap box I can replace over the years as my needs and the techology changes.
Start from scratch to redesign a product they have no experience with, in a low-margin market? Wouldn't make sense to me, but what would I know? IMO, better to work with a proven, experienced HDTV manufacturer.
By that reasoning, Apple should have partnered with RIM or Motorola instead of designing a mobile phone from scratch on their own. Actually, they did just that at first with the Rokkr phone which was, predictably, a major flop. Then they created the iPhone on their own and changed the face of mobile.
Apple could own the TV market. The limitation is not technical in nature. The issue is that the cable companies control the content and the pipe to the customers, and whatever solution Apple could bring to the table would replace everything the cable companies currently control (cable boxes, UI, remotes, DVR, PPV, etc.)
For this to happen, Apple would need to come up with a business proposal that would sufficiently benefit the cable companies (doesn't seem likely) or they'd have to come up with a very clever way to circumvent them entirely.
At the same time, there were daily mockups and rumors of what an Apple Phone would look like for years before it was released. It would do this, it would do that. Some of them got kind of close to the final product, some were way off. That's because on a daily basis, people were frustrated with how their existing cell phones worked, and dreamt up ways to improve the experience, then projected those dreams onto Apple.
I haven't seen anyone explain what Apple HDTV would revolutionize. I'll grant you that my imagination is lacking, but I don't see where anyone else has mocked it up either. The real challenge to the end user is managing content from multiple inputs--cable, internet, over the air, etc. That's the fragmentation that Jobso has already pointed out as a dealkiller.
I'll take a swing at it?.
1) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer "TV + iCloud" TVs to vendors. This opens up Apple's potential market to multiple companies, with multiple panel ties and even more sizes without the need for them to carry a single one in their relatively small stores.
2) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer ""TV + iCloud"-compatible devices to vendors. TV run the same way you'd expect them to, with all their standard I/O and UIs, but have a special I/O for a simple plug-in AppleTC device that will allow the TV to use that for its UI and attach to the back of the TV (even connecting to it's IR sensor).
3) Apple creates a new AppleTV to sell in their storers that exceeds $99 in price. Something along the lines of what a cable box or HD TiVo sells for at full price. THis new box is the receiver of all your other devices with all their HDMI, Coax, and optical cables going into the back of this device. THe TV is just a dumb monitor, set to HDMI and all other switching between your TiVo, Cable (which .can use a cable card that is plugged into this AppleTV), and Blu-ray player are all switched from the AppleTV interface, not the TV.
Are those enough ideas?
Making or licensing an expanded Apple TV card to HDTV set mfgs solves the issue of opening the HDTV market -- allowing them to sell the razor blades (content) rather than low margin razors (the large HDTV sets)
First off content isn't necessarily high margin, in fact by Apple's standards it's low margin. The existing iTunes business exists to sell devices, not the other way around. An Apple TV card introduces the same issues that made the ROKR a failure, no connection to the consumer and no control over the experience.
The existing Apple TV doesn't exist in order to sell content really, it exists to round out the platform ecosystem.
I'll take a swing at it?.
1) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer "TV + iCloud" TVs to vendors. This opens up Apple's potential market to multiple companies, with multiple panel ties and even more sizes without the need for them to carry a single one in their relatively small stores.
2) Apple licenses with TV makers to offer ""TV + iCloud"-compatible devices to vendors. TV run the same way you'd expect them to, with all their standard I/O and UIs, but have a special I/O for a simple plug-in AppleTC device that will allow the TV to use that for its UI and attach to the back of the TV (even connecting to it's IR sensor).
3) Apple creates a new AppleTV to sell in their storers that exceeds $99 in price. Something along the lines of what a cable box or HD TiVo sells for at full price. THis new box is the receiver of all your other devices with all their HDMI, Coax, and optical cables going into the back of this device. THe TV is just a dumb monitor, set to HDMI and all other switching between your TiVo, Cable (which .can use a cable card that is plugged into this AppleTV), and Blu-ray player are all switched from the AppleTV interface, not the TV.
Are those enough ideas?
Yeah, sure. Those are great ideas, and I'd buy at least one of those variations, and seem like logical extensions of the Apple TV model. But they don't involve Apple manufacturing and selling big flat panels of glass that hang on your living room wall. I thought that was what folks were talking about with an Apple HDTV.
Except TVs are a race to the bottom and Apple isn't into gimmicks.
What if they just added the AppleTV hardware to the inside of the monitor they already make now? It already has a better picture and far, far better sound than any of the plasma TVs I've been looking over this week. If it was 42" instead of 27" it would be a no brainer and exactly what I'm looking for and Apple would still be making a healthy margin. They could also advertise it as an "all-in-one" in that you wouldn't have to buy a stereo and speakers to make the thing useful.
A decent 42" flatscreen plasma is currently 1500 or 2000 in my area and this monitor is just over a thousand. If they could make the screen bigger and only increase the price by 50% it would be right in the ballpark of the TVs I've been looking at, be far better quality, and still Apple would have a good margin.
I'm not sure they are going to do this at all and if I had to bet I would bet they don't get into TVs but I think it's far more likely and more possible than you are willing to admit perhaps.