Yes, people said Apple would bomb in the Smart phone arena as well. The reason entrenched players. Same for the iPod. Same for Tablets.
Apple moving to TVs makes perfect sense. First, TVs quickly are becoming bundled with Smart Applications. Apple has an App Store of hundreds of thousands of apps that would translate nicely to the big screen. Second, if Apple isn't careful, these TVs could displace computers eventually. Third, Apple has to create new markets to grow. Fourth, Apple already makes just about everything that would be found in a TV. Fifth, Apple likes to control the end to end user experience. it would make sense to add a television especially with the cost of LEDs quickly dropping. Sixth, Apple has a loyal fan base that is almost guaranteed to buy an Apple TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
That is the real challenge. Currently, integrating lots of different devices is a pain. I need special cables for everything. A Apple TV with built in wireless and access to an large application store would be killer. If Apple developed a different controller, the TV could display the X-Box, Wii, and Sony Playstation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarenW
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.
FWIW, if Apple were to market their own branded HDTV, I'd look at LG as the likely manufacturer. Unlike the other "connected" TV's, LG includes a full-fledged browser with a wand-shape remote that allows interaction with functions by using gestures.
I agree though my agreement is based solely on how similar their icons are
I do however think this is a no brainer NO. Think about the floor space required plus technical helps needed. The likely scenario would be to joint venture with LG as their manufacturer and Apple supply the contents and UI or they could offer smaller footprint ATV (like an expanded line up in the first year before totally replacing it). For example, in the form of CAM solution or USB dongle-based HW. After all, WiFi is the minimum.
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
DUDE O-RAMA .man i always agree with you
bu-bu-but now i have to say . huh ????
most of where apple makes 40% pure markup where dell makes 8 to9 % mark up . same as tvs . stay make razor thin profits and top rayed $1,100 $ sets get dumped next year for $500.or less.
But Apple can live with 15$ profit to start and make a ton on app start i tunes
and TV makers carry all that debt from past mistakes so even when they make good money they still have a shit bottom line . apple will make to start a flat screen 3d 20in set with a great screen and revolutionary enjoyment !!!!
I can't believe many of the posts here. Very shortsighted thinking. Many of you can't see the forest or the trees.
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and doing it the Apple way. This usually means that they do things in a way that we don't expect and in a way that doesn't satisfy everyone. But it will satisfy enough people and do enough things right that there is a solid foundation for growth, and over some years it will end up satisfying most people.
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
QFT. Someone needs to say that this is exactly the right way to think about Apple's possible entry into this market. If Apple listened to the no-can-do crowd they'd probably be making beige box Windows PC today.
I can't believe many of the posts here. Very shortsighted thinking. Many of you can't see the forest or the trees.
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and doing it the Apple way. This usually means that they do things in a way that we don't expect and in a way that doesn't satisfy everyone. But it will satisfy enough people and do enough things right that there is a solid foundation for growth, and over some years it will end up satisfying most people.
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful. With an Apple TV, they can't control the eco-system because they're dependent upon the set-top box makers and the cable/satellite companies. Unless Apple is going to buy out Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon FIOS and all the other big players, I don't see how they can have big impact, unless they're planning to make huge investments in content and go around the MSOs and even then there would always be some network special or sporting event that they wouldn't be carrying.
Besides, the success of Apple's laptops, iPods, iPhones and iPads has changed the way people consume media. I'm not sure that younger people really care about sitting on the couch and passively watching television on a large screen (with the possible exception of sports), similar to how they're no longer interested in listening to music in the foreground on large stereo systems. Apple has really changed people's media consumption habits (for better or for worse.) So I'm really not sure that Apple would be interested in this market, even aside from the other issues.
Even if they were and as per my other post, while Apple is a great and visionary company, they're also arrogant and stubborn. I don't see them creating a TV that would be as open as current TVs and supporting the use of receivers, Blu-ray players, HD game players, etc. Would an Apple TV even include HDMI ports? While I think Apple would simplify the device, I think they would also limit its utility and for me personally, that would be a non-starter. And I say that even though I sincerely believe that the Japanese electronics industry has made the entire chain of Blu-ray players, audio/video receivers, TVs and media server access unduly complex and highly illogical. (I'm an ex-audio engineer and even I'm not sure of what's going on some of the time.)
You might want to pend some time watching stuff on those Lcds with the high refresh rate. I noticed from time to time (just in passing while at the store) that sometimes the picture looks funny. Film or tv will briefly look almost like live video. I don't know if that was from some extra process the tv was doing or is just a side effect of 120 mhz refresh but I found it oddly annoying.
It's incredibly annoying for film and TV, but 100hz on our family Samsung HDTV is awesome for sports.
That's why... there is a menu item to turn it off.
100hz for sports, turn it off for everything else.
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful.
That's not entirely true. When the iPhone-1 launched, it did so with no App ecosystem, Apple didn't even think one was needed, but it was still a success.
When the iPod first hit PC it came with musicmatch and not iTunes support, even when iTunes did become available for PC with the iPod-3G many jurisdictions either had no iTunes store, or had one that was very sparsely populated. iTunes music wasn't even hugely popular due to DRM, low bitrates and poor price comparison to CD. Even the non-techies I knew would use it only for the odd-track. Heck back in those days the 'eco system' for getting MP3s on computer was mostly illegal.
I didn't buy a 2ndGen 20GB iPod for iTunes, I bought it because it was beautiful and it transformed my CD library.
I didn't buy a first gen iPhone for the eco system, I bought it because it was beautiful and I hated my Nokia 8800.
That's not entirely true. When the iPhone-1 launched, it did so with no App ecosystem, Apple didn't even think one was needed, but it was still a success.
When the iPod first hit PC it came with musicmatch and not iTunes support, even when iTunes did become available for PC with the iPod-3G many jurisdictions either had no iTunes store, or had one that was very sparsely populated. iTunes music wasn't even hugely popular due to DRM, low bitrates and poor price comparison to CD. Even the non-techies I knew would use it only for the odd-track. Heck back in those days the 'eco system' for getting MP3s on computer was mostly illegal.
I didn't buy a 2ndGen 20GB iPod for iTunes, I bought it because it was beautiful and it transformed my CD library.
I didn't buy a first gen iPhone for the eco system, I bought it because it was beautiful and I hated my Nokia 8800.
Your overall point may be true, but I don't know about the examples. For example, I really don't believe that Apple didn't think an app store was needed, I think it was more of a case of they weren't ready to support third party developers. iTunes music may not have beat out the brick & mortars in the earliest years, it was easily more popular than most other legal download services combined, and they did quickly grow to be the largest music seller. Besides, those are somewhat old examples, they do what they can to build and control their ecosystem, even if the ecosystem size is minimal or non-existent at first.
Your overall point may be true, but I don't know about the examples. For example, I really don't believe that Apple didn't think an app store was needed, I think it was more of a case of they weren't ready to support third party developers. iTunes music may not have beat out the brick & mortars in the earliest years, it was easily more popular than most other legal download services combined, and they did quickly grow to be the largest music seller. Besides, those are somewhat old examples, they do what they can to build and control their ecosystem, even if the ecosystem size is minimal or non-existent at first.
There's a whole lotta "Steve Jobs says no" claims over the years. As TUAW points out, that doesn't reeeaaally mean no.
there are many markets in which Sony competes and where Apple is not even remotely close in participating. 'becoming more like Sony' is not and will never be realised just by adding HDTVs to one's product line.
Just as long as it's not proprietary and you need express (airport) or apple tv and no dvr connection and not $3000
You can get crazy killer tvs at TGE eom at feud even best buy has a 56" plasma for $399 now with moving pixels so you can play games. And we are finally seeing 1080p not "i" as 720p is much better than 1080interlaced.
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful. With an Apple TV, they can't control the eco-system because they're dependent upon the set-top box makers and the cable/satellite companies. Unless Apple is going to buy out Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon FIOS and all the other big players, I don't see how they can have big impact, unless they're planning to make huge investments in content and go around the MSOs and even then there would always be some network special or sporting event that they wouldn't be carrying.
I don't see that as a barrier if they develop the correct big partnerships. They've done it with equally big companies in other markets. Time Warner and Comcast would correctly realize that an Apple entry into the TV space would be something they would need to put some attention to, there could be standards and alliances made. Did Apple not coordinate with ATT to do Visual Voicemail?
Quote:
Besides, the success of Apple's laptops, iPods, iPhones and iPads has changed the way people consume media. I'm not sure that younger people really care about sitting on the couch and passively watching television on a large screen (with the possible exception of sports), similar to how they're no longer interested in listening to music in the foreground on large stereo systems. Apple has really changed people's media consumption habits (for better or for worse.) So I'm really not sure that Apple would be interested in this market, even aside from the other issues.
You're just not seeing it. What makes you think that an Apple TV would remain just a TV? Just another HD set with an Apple logo on it? Really?
Getting into this means they would be value adding something to end users in a meaningful way. Maybe not meaningful to you personally, but as I pointed out before they don't need to do that, they just need to hit enough of the right notes with enough people for it to work. Maybe they want to make the first really truly smart TV? Perhaps a TV that is also a computer, one that actually works and isn't just a gimmick.
A TV with a FaceTime camera. One that is cloud aware and can do specific computing tasks. One that can run apps, even 3rd party apps. A whole new App market and ecosystem for 3rd parties to dive into. One that is competitive or even replaces the need for consoles. One that perhaps supplants or surpasses the desire to have cable TV at all. Perhaps one that makes cable TV much better, like what Google TV tried to do but not suck. Maybe all of these things.
These are just the ideas I can come up with as an outside observer. I probably have it completely wrong in some aspects, because I think there's great potential to attack this problem from an unexpected direction. Offer something, a killer app or feature of some kind that none of us have thought of. Apple routinely does this.
Quote:
Even if they were and as per my other post, while Apple is a great and visionary company, they're also arrogant and stubborn. I don't see them creating a TV that would be as open as current TVs and supporting the use of receivers, Blu-ray players, HD game players, etc. Would an Apple TV even include HDMI ports? While I think Apple would simplify the device, I think they would also limit its utility and for me personally, that would be a non-starter. And I say that even though I sincerely believe that the Japanese electronics industry has made the entire chain of Blu-ray players, audio/video receivers, TVs and media server access unduly complex and highly illogical. (I'm an ex-audio engineer and even I'm not sure of what's going on some of the time.)
Would it include HDMI ports? Of course it would include at least 1, since the current AppleTV set top box does. Unless, and this is the only reason I can think of... unless HDMI ports are no longer relevant. How could that be possible? What if by the time in launches that blu-ray is no longer important, 3rd party consoles are no longer relevant. Because the TV has the right built in features, because of Airplay, because of perhaps a next gen wireless standard, because iTunes, Netflix and Hulu offer 1080p streaming video at cost and quality levels that make blu-ray obsolete.
Who cares if its a non-starter for you personally, this isn't about you. Or me for that matter. It's about offering something different and better than what the competition is offering. It's about moving us further into the future and away from the legacy of the past.
For anyone to really wrap their minds around this idea you have to go back to those silly notions from various scifi movies throughout the 80's and 90's. Movies like Aliens, Total Recall and others would show TV sets as being more than just TV's in the future. They had a dynamic presence, sure they did the news and broadcast programs, but they also ran advanced window dressing, specific apps and so on. TV's in these futures were advanced intelligent assistants in your home. Now I dont think Apple is looking to replicate these ideas exactly, but I do think they want to change the field. These movies at least showed a concept where whole walls were displays and they had alot of robustness.
I don't think I'm too far out there bringing this up. When Jobs and Ive first showed FaceTime running on the iPhone, their conversation centered around how "this is like the Jetsons". They're talking about taking the conceptual future of the past (however silly and unrealistic it was) and making it the reality of the present and future. They can do this. They are uniquely positioned to forge the partnerships, deals and get the components in place to not just make something compelling but make it real, different and priced right. You have to have their level of imagination. Few of us do. I can't see the full shape of it but I think they do and this new market they will help define, this new form of TV is inevitable. It's a question of when really, when does the technology convergence make sense to do it and when will they be able to implement their strategy.
Comments
Apple moving to TVs makes perfect sense. First, TVs quickly are becoming bundled with Smart Applications. Apple has an App Store of hundreds of thousands of apps that would translate nicely to the big screen. Second, if Apple isn't careful, these TVs could displace computers eventually. Third, Apple has to create new markets to grow. Fourth, Apple already makes just about everything that would be found in a TV. Fifth, Apple likes to control the end to end user experience. it would make sense to add a television especially with the cost of LEDs quickly dropping. Sixth, Apple has a loyal fan base that is almost guaranteed to buy an Apple TV.
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
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.
FWIW, if Apple were to market their own branded HDTV, I'd look at LG as the likely manufacturer. Unlike the other "connected" TV's, LG includes a full-fledged browser with a wand-shape remote that allows interaction with functions by using gestures.
I agree though my agreement is based solely on how similar their icons are
I do however think this is a no brainer NO. Think about the floor space required plus technical helps needed. The likely scenario would be to joint venture with LG as their manufacturer and Apple supply the contents and UI or they could offer smaller footprint ATV (like an expanded line up in the first year before totally replacing it). For example, in the form of CAM solution or USB dongle-based HW. After all, WiFi is the minimum.
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
DUDE O-RAMA .man i always agree with you
bu-bu-but now i have to say . huh ????
most of where apple makes 40% pure markup where dell makes 8 to9 % mark up . same as tvs . stay make razor thin profits and top rayed $1,100 $ sets get dumped next year for $500.or less.
But Apple can live with 15$ profit to start and make a ton on app start i tunes
and TV makers carry all that debt from past mistakes so even when they make good money they still have a shit bottom line . apple will make to start a flat screen 3d 20in set with a great screen and revolutionary enjoyment !!!!
any way i enjoy your posts here so
high 5 .
slap !!!!
9
I can't believe many of the posts here. Very shortsighted thinking. Many of you can't see the forest or the trees.
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
QFT. Someone needs to say that this is exactly the right way to think about Apple's possible entry into this market. If Apple listened to the no-can-do crowd they'd probably be making beige box Windows PC today.
I can't believe many of the posts here. Very shortsighted thinking. Many of you can't see the forest or the trees.
A lot of the arguments you guys are presenting are similar to ones made about why Apple shouldn't get involved with mp3 players, phones and tablets. A bit shocking given how familiar many of you are with that history.
When Apple gets involved in a new market they go in with the intention of A) reinventing it and
Razor thin margins and price points don't matter if they differentiate themselves and add value. Did Apple not sell a $500 phone, subsidized with a 2 year contract? $400 mp3 player, certainly you guys remember that?
They also have the ability now that they control pricing of their supply chain to go the opposite way, selling a $500 tablet when the industry was expecting $1000 tablet, and still make significant profit margins their competitors just can't.
No experience making this sort of thing, really? What do you think the Apple TV is? How about all those 27 and 30in displays Apple has been making for years now? Their interaction and negotiation with a range of media companies over the last decade isn't experience? How about their investments in app delivery and cloud services? How about their nearly unparalleled negotiating power in the industry to procure components and glass?
With a little imagination you can see how these perhaps seemingly unrelated elements could come together to create a great TV experience. Jobs himself has said that the set top box doesn't work, ultimately it just adds clutter and confusion and another interface on top of other interfaces. He has said there's no clear way to reinvent the space, but reinvention is what's needed. With the years they've been dabbling at this, accruing experience, building up their supply chain leverage, media company leverage and so on, is everyone here so certain that Apple couldn't figure out a way to make a TV that is compelling and different?
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful. With an Apple TV, they can't control the eco-system because they're dependent upon the set-top box makers and the cable/satellite companies. Unless Apple is going to buy out Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon FIOS and all the other big players, I don't see how they can have big impact, unless they're planning to make huge investments in content and go around the MSOs and even then there would always be some network special or sporting event that they wouldn't be carrying.
Besides, the success of Apple's laptops, iPods, iPhones and iPads has changed the way people consume media. I'm not sure that younger people really care about sitting on the couch and passively watching television on a large screen (with the possible exception of sports), similar to how they're no longer interested in listening to music in the foreground on large stereo systems. Apple has really changed people's media consumption habits (for better or for worse.) So I'm really not sure that Apple would be interested in this market, even aside from the other issues.
Even if they were and as per my other post, while Apple is a great and visionary company, they're also arrogant and stubborn. I don't see them creating a TV that would be as open as current TVs and supporting the use of receivers, Blu-ray players, HD game players, etc. Would an Apple TV even include HDMI ports? While I think Apple would simplify the device, I think they would also limit its utility and for me personally, that would be a non-starter. And I say that even though I sincerely believe that the Japanese electronics industry has made the entire chain of Blu-ray players, audio/video receivers, TVs and media server access unduly complex and highly illogical. (I'm an ex-audio engineer and even I'm not sure of what's going on some of the time.)
Oh, yeah. This rumor. I forgot about it because of how COMPLETELY STUPID it is.
There's no money in HDTVs. Why sell the TV when you can sell an interface that is SO good that no one would ever use anyone else's?
*coughA5AppleTVcough*
Thank you. All that needs to be said about this nonsensical rumour is done in the first post.
You might want to pend some time watching stuff on those Lcds with the high refresh rate. I noticed from time to time (just in passing while at the store) that sometimes the picture looks funny. Film or tv will briefly look almost like live video. I don't know if that was from some extra process the tv was doing or is just a side effect of 120 mhz refresh but I found it oddly annoying.
It's incredibly annoying for film and TV, but 100hz on our family Samsung HDTV is awesome for sports.
That's why... there is a menu item to turn it off.
100hz for sports, turn it off for everything else.
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful.
That's not entirely true. When the iPhone-1 launched, it did so with no App ecosystem, Apple didn't even think one was needed, but it was still a success.
When the iPod first hit PC it came with musicmatch and not iTunes support, even when iTunes did become available for PC with the iPod-3G many jurisdictions either had no iTunes store, or had one that was very sparsely populated. iTunes music wasn't even hugely popular due to DRM, low bitrates and poor price comparison to CD. Even the non-techies I knew would use it only for the odd-track. Heck back in those days the 'eco system' for getting MP3s on computer was mostly illegal.
I didn't buy a 2ndGen 20GB iPod for iTunes, I bought it because it was beautiful and it transformed my CD library.
I didn't buy a first gen iPhone for the eco system, I bought it because it was beautiful and I hated my Nokia 8800.
That's not entirely true. When the iPhone-1 launched, it did so with no App ecosystem, Apple didn't even think one was needed, but it was still a success.
When the iPod first hit PC it came with musicmatch and not iTunes support, even when iTunes did become available for PC with the iPod-3G many jurisdictions either had no iTunes store, or had one that was very sparsely populated. iTunes music wasn't even hugely popular due to DRM, low bitrates and poor price comparison to CD. Even the non-techies I knew would use it only for the odd-track. Heck back in those days the 'eco system' for getting MP3s on computer was mostly illegal.
I didn't buy a 2ndGen 20GB iPod for iTunes, I bought it because it was beautiful and it transformed my CD library.
I didn't buy a first gen iPhone for the eco system, I bought it because it was beautiful and I hated my Nokia 8800.
Your overall point may be true, but I don't know about the examples. For example, I really don't believe that Apple didn't think an app store was needed, I think it was more of a case of they weren't ready to support third party developers. iTunes music may not have beat out the brick & mortars in the earliest years, it was easily more popular than most other legal download services combined, and they did quickly grow to be the largest music seller. Besides, those are somewhat old examples, they do what they can to build and control their ecosystem, even if the ecosystem size is minimal or non-existent at first.
Your overall point may be true, but I don't know about the examples. For example, I really don't believe that Apple didn't think an app store was needed, I think it was more of a case of they weren't ready to support third party developers. iTunes music may not have beat out the brick & mortars in the earliest years, it was easily more popular than most other legal download services combined, and they did quickly grow to be the largest music seller. Besides, those are somewhat old examples, they do what they can to build and control their ecosystem, even if the ecosystem size is minimal or non-existent at first.
There's a whole lotta "Steve Jobs says no" claims over the years. As TUAW points out, that doesn't reeeaaally mean no.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/18/when-...ybe-heres-why/
He's suggesting Apple become more like Sony ...
no.
there are many markets in which Sony competes and where Apple is not even remotely close in participating. 'becoming more like Sony' is not and will never be realised just by adding HDTVs to one's product line.
You can get crazy killer tvs at TGE eom at feud even best buy has a 56" plasma for $399 now with moving pixels so you can play games. And we are finally seeing 1080p not "i" as 720p is much better than 1080interlaced.
The difference is that with MP3 players, phones and tablets, Apple was able to control the eco-system. That's what made those products so successful. With an Apple TV, they can't control the eco-system because they're dependent upon the set-top box makers and the cable/satellite companies. Unless Apple is going to buy out Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon FIOS and all the other big players, I don't see how they can have big impact, unless they're planning to make huge investments in content and go around the MSOs and even then there would always be some network special or sporting event that they wouldn't be carrying.
I don't see that as a barrier if they develop the correct big partnerships. They've done it with equally big companies in other markets. Time Warner and Comcast would correctly realize that an Apple entry into the TV space would be something they would need to put some attention to, there could be standards and alliances made. Did Apple not coordinate with ATT to do Visual Voicemail?
Besides, the success of Apple's laptops, iPods, iPhones and iPads has changed the way people consume media. I'm not sure that younger people really care about sitting on the couch and passively watching television on a large screen (with the possible exception of sports), similar to how they're no longer interested in listening to music in the foreground on large stereo systems. Apple has really changed people's media consumption habits (for better or for worse.) So I'm really not sure that Apple would be interested in this market, even aside from the other issues.
You're just not seeing it. What makes you think that an Apple TV would remain just a TV? Just another HD set with an Apple logo on it? Really?
Getting into this means they would be value adding something to end users in a meaningful way. Maybe not meaningful to you personally, but as I pointed out before they don't need to do that, they just need to hit enough of the right notes with enough people for it to work. Maybe they want to make the first really truly smart TV? Perhaps a TV that is also a computer, one that actually works and isn't just a gimmick.
A TV with a FaceTime camera. One that is cloud aware and can do specific computing tasks. One that can run apps, even 3rd party apps. A whole new App market and ecosystem for 3rd parties to dive into. One that is competitive or even replaces the need for consoles. One that perhaps supplants or surpasses the desire to have cable TV at all. Perhaps one that makes cable TV much better, like what Google TV tried to do but not suck. Maybe all of these things.
These are just the ideas I can come up with as an outside observer. I probably have it completely wrong in some aspects, because I think there's great potential to attack this problem from an unexpected direction. Offer something, a killer app or feature of some kind that none of us have thought of. Apple routinely does this.
Even if they were and as per my other post, while Apple is a great and visionary company, they're also arrogant and stubborn. I don't see them creating a TV that would be as open as current TVs and supporting the use of receivers, Blu-ray players, HD game players, etc. Would an Apple TV even include HDMI ports? While I think Apple would simplify the device, I think they would also limit its utility and for me personally, that would be a non-starter. And I say that even though I sincerely believe that the Japanese electronics industry has made the entire chain of Blu-ray players, audio/video receivers, TVs and media server access unduly complex and highly illogical. (I'm an ex-audio engineer and even I'm not sure of what's going on some of the time.)
Would it include HDMI ports? Of course it would include at least 1, since the current AppleTV set top box does. Unless, and this is the only reason I can think of... unless HDMI ports are no longer relevant. How could that be possible? What if by the time in launches that blu-ray is no longer important, 3rd party consoles are no longer relevant. Because the TV has the right built in features, because of Airplay, because of perhaps a next gen wireless standard, because iTunes, Netflix and Hulu offer 1080p streaming video at cost and quality levels that make blu-ray obsolete.
Who cares if its a non-starter for you personally, this isn't about you. Or me for that matter. It's about offering something different and better than what the competition is offering. It's about moving us further into the future and away from the legacy of the past.
For anyone to really wrap their minds around this idea you have to go back to those silly notions from various scifi movies throughout the 80's and 90's. Movies like Aliens, Total Recall and others would show TV sets as being more than just TV's in the future. They had a dynamic presence, sure they did the news and broadcast programs, but they also ran advanced window dressing, specific apps and so on. TV's in these futures were advanced intelligent assistants in your home. Now I dont think Apple is looking to replicate these ideas exactly, but I do think they want to change the field. These movies at least showed a concept where whole walls were displays and they had alot of robustness.
I don't think I'm too far out there bringing this up. When Jobs and Ive first showed FaceTime running on the iPhone, their conversation centered around how "this is like the Jetsons". They're talking about taking the conceptual future of the past (however silly and unrealistic it was) and making it the reality of the present and future. They can do this. They are uniquely positioned to forge the partnerships, deals and get the components in place to not just make something compelling but make it real, different and priced right. You have to have their level of imagination. Few of us do. I can't see the full shape of it but I think they do and this new market they will help define, this new form of TV is inevitable. It's a question of when really, when does the technology convergence make sense to do it and when will they be able to implement their strategy.