You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
I was trying to build a Sony Tablet S app that would do just this but the morons locked the damn IR sensor so you can't write software for it; you have to use theirs. Stupid. When will these companies realize the truly good ideas come from the people, not from their overworked code slaves.
The problem is my current TV is lke 20 years old and is seldom turned on. So to even consider a new TV I'd have to see other compelling uses for the display. Given the right features I could see myself going for it, maybe not clamoring though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
I'm fully entrenched in the Apple Ecosystem and I don't think I'd buy one. I have a 48" Sony that is only 3 years old. I've only bought two tv's in the last 12 years. Hooking a $99 appletv up to my tv works for me personally. I wonder how many folks are clamoring for this? Maybe they don't know they want it yet?
I agree in principle; a set top box makes for easier adoption, and functionality described can be duplicated.
The AppleTV really needs an update; it still feels like a beta that's "almost there".
The only reason I see the benefit of an actual AppleTV integrated into a display is that Apple would control all interfaces; right now, you have a remote for the TV, you have to select the input from a clunky menu, etc.
It would be huge if Apple integrated everything, so you have one simple remote, easy menus, etc.
Maybe it gets the a6 not the a5. I'd be ok with that.
A TV plugged in with iOS 5, using the iPad as a giant remote with TV guide, etc. Having Siri built in so that I can ask for directions or information about anything while watching a TV show in a separate window. How about sports statistics on a player while you are watching a football game. Or perhaps answering a phone call on Face time through the set, or without, while sitting not the couch. Maybe Apple will have the 3-d thing worked out where glasses are not necessary.
Just throwing out some ideas, but the opportunities are endless using the television as the portal. I do hope that the 50" max isn't true. Need something a little larger, but sounds good overall. I was going to make a purchase of a new set this year, but I will wait a little longer.
For my sins I work as an electronics engineer coding RTL for IP for SoCs that are used in DTVs. Most, if not all of these are more complicated than Apple's magical A5. They contain multiple CPU cores along with demods, dsps and frcs ( frame rate converters, the things that do all of the 240Hz post processing nonsense ). Coupled with this is platform SW to tie the entire system together.
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
A TV plugged in with iOS 5, using the iPad as a giant remote with TV guide, etc. Having Siri built in so that I can ask for directions or information about anything while watching a TV show in a separate window. How about sports statistics on a player while you are watching a football game. Or perhaps answering a phone call on Face time through the set, or without, while sitting not the couch. Maybe Apple will have the 3-d thing worked out where glasses are not necessary.
Just throwing out some ideas, but the opportunities are endless using the television as the portal. I do hope that the 50" max isn't true. Need something a little larger, but sounds good overall. I was going to make a purchase of a new set this year, but I will wait a little longer.
Direct TV already has the sports stats feature, but what you want out of a jumbo remote like the ipad is the ability to talk to your stupid DVR with an IR remote that has a full keyboard. Instead, apple shunned the IR remote entirely. Fail IMHO.
No one said the TV would be limited to only working within Apple's Ecosystem.. after all, cable and public channels will need to be an option as well otherwise it really would be a non-starter... like selling hydrogen powered cars with no Hydrogen refill stations...
chicken and the egg yolk
That's what I'm not getting from some of the comments here. AFAIK, no other tv manufacturer has to make content deals and stuff. It would still be a tv. Screw in a cat5 and voila - cable. Apple just needs to provide EXTRA features, not strip out all features and be tied to iTunes only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
maybe it's possible to make a box that hijacks the television's controls, but that seems like it would be a "bag of hurt" with all of the different models available.
Siri will be able to almost completely disintermediate Google as part of search advertising.
Why waste time entering information manually and going through a search engine, when all information can filter through Siri? Brilliant, Apple! And advertisers will be lining up like lost puppies to pay for this information.
Other than AI which says that it's a $100 B opportunity for Apple.
That aside, the number is irrelevant - you've missed the entire point of my post.
We have a non-product and no evidence of whether it even exists, much less price, features, availability, etc and we already have analysts projecting that Apple will play a major role in the market. That builds up ridiculous, unrealistic expectations that Apple couldn't possible meet - which means more 'Apple fails to meet targets' headlines in the future.
much smarter to stick with the AppleTV and get better content on it. Too much overhead with Televisions, too many different sizes. Or else make an iBeamer projector and make it really portable, even integrate it into AppleTV.
Whether or not this is true is largely irrelevant at this point. The idiot analysts are already setting up absurd expectations ($100 B in revenues? Give me a break) that it will be impossible for Apple to meet. Now, if Apple only sells $50 B of HDTVs - or doesn't sell them at all but 'only' triples profit in their existing businesses, all the analysts and media can label Apple a failure again.
You must have been laying really low for the past 5 years, but Apple is now considered the biggest, baddest and most successful tech company in the world. This whole inferiority/persecution complex really must stop.
For my sins I work as an electronics engineer coding RTL for IP for SoCs that are used in DTVs. Most, if not all of these are more complicated than Apple's magical A5. They contain multiple CPU cores along with demods, dsps and frcs ( frame rate converters, the things that do all of the 240Hz post processing nonsense ). Coupled with this is platform SW to tie the entire system together.
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
The money will come from the advertising information that Apple will be able to provide by having a "smart" connection directly to the viewer.
Other than AI which says that it's a $100 B opportunity for Apple.
yeah, when I looked back over the article before I posted, I missed the headline...
Quote:
That aside, the number is irrelevant - you've missed the entire point of my post.
You are right, analysts will inevitabily fudge up predictions of Apple's future business which will inevitably lead to annoying stock price corrections. I just didn't see evidence of that in this article yet (outside the headline that was not the fault of the analyst in question).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But I have no idea what Apple's plans are. Maybe they've got something great up their sleeve. Maybe they don't. And, frankly, I don't really care. Wake me up when there's a real product.
Here is where we actually disagree. This is a rumor site. You can't start carping about a rumor site spreading rumors without looking a little silly. Especially after it has just come out that Jobs was known to have been talking about "cracking" the TV problem not too long ago.
The rumors will swing from obvious to ridiculous but we usually have a fair idea of what is going to happen and when before it is all over. What tha analysts do with these rumors...well, that is up to them!
much smarter to stick with the AppleTV and get better content on it. Too much overhead with Televisions, too many different sizes. Or else make an iBeamer projector and make it really portable, even integrate it into AppleTV.
That may just be the best idea I've ever had.
It's so funny that you mention a projector. I thought Apple might go in that direction when it bought the "pico" domain name. It would settle the cost and space in the store issue and with many people mounting their televisions on the wall anyway, it wouldn't be too weird.
You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
Don't forget the teenage kids who now fight over the remote- Siri's brain will explode.
This will fail if you can't "cut the cord" to the cable and satellite providers for TV programming. It's what Steve DIDN'T want. He always said that unless you reinvented the entire chain and get rid of the extra boxes and remotes that it would not succeed and I agree 100%.
Of course the cable monopolies will just up their charges for broadband internet...
Possibly the thing you are not thinking of is the fact that there are people out there *without* HDTV's in their home at the moment.
I'm one of those people. At this point I have no strong desire to buy one either.
Quote:
Just as most smartphone owners didn't see the value of the iPhone right away because they already had a device that filled what they thought were their needs, anyone who already has a big screen TV and all the various boxes and content hookups can't see any need to replace it.
You also have the issue of dealing with your local cable company. Really cable has to be one of the biggest rip offs in history. Some of us avoid new TVs simply because there is no additional value unless you contract with a cable service.
This brings up one issue, unless Apple is going to find a way to address the ethics issues in the cable industry I suspect they will be entering a shrinking market.
Quote:
There are people out there who don't have an HDTV yet and at least some of them are not buying because they don't understand what it is they need to get or find the whole field complicated and off-putting. Apple will make an HDTV with built in content and make it so simple that your grandmother will buy it.
TVs are pretty darn simple as it is, I don't think that is an issue. What is off putting is the very high prices one pays for very low quality content.
Quote:
What if they either bought Netflix or subsidised it on the TV for instance? Then any fool can buy a TV, plug it in and it already has every old movie and TV show on it you ever heard of without buying another thing. I think that would be immensely popular. Big upfront price perhaps, but once you bought it, no monthly cable bill at all.
You would still have that monthly Internet access bill. More importantly the minute you start shipping Apple HDTVs there will be complaints about bandwidth usage and lost revenue from the cable companies. The unfortunate reality is that Cable companies have a corrupt relationship with many local communities and are also the only valid supplier of high speed networking. Until the issue of reasonable high speed Internet access is addressed Apple will not be able to realize the full potential of a smart TV.
Quote:
Most of the people I know with HDTV's pay something like 30 or 40 a month for Internet and then a further 69-90 for cable or TV packages. How nice would it be to just pay for the Internet hookup? This is just another step on the road to turning Cable companies, cell phone providers, and telecommunications outfits into the big dumb pipes they should be.
That would be I seal but these companies will not give up easily. Apple would need to start acquiring such companies to force realization upon the industry that people rather not be nickel and dimmed to death. The reality is that in some locations your numbers are actually low, people spend hundreds a month and frankly are getting tired of the quality they get in return. In many locals cable companies have been loosing customers faster than they have been gaining them.
So yeah in an ideal world the cable company would be any different than you water supply. A service that in this case delivers photons or electrons to your house. Frankly I wouldn't mind paying by the bit just like I pay by the gallon for water. The rates have to be reasonable though. In the end I suspect legislation and directly dealing with corruption is in order. As big as Apple is I don't see them making huge changes in this industry even with all the cash they have.
Not portable enough for me. Other than than the Mac Pro and iMac's everything else Apple has sold is portable. This isn't.
It might gain traction because it is made by Apple over the short term but long term it won't be worth it, unless of course you can fold it up and take it to some place remote and set it up in less than two minutes and use it with a solar panel and is connected via satellite feed.
Comments
You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
I was trying to build a Sony Tablet S app that would do just this but the morons locked the damn IR sensor so you can't write software for it; you have to use theirs. Stupid. When will these companies realize the truly good ideas come from the people, not from their overworked code slaves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8GriGd6vdU
For now I use Elgatos eyetv on my 24" iMac for a second TV in my Bedroom.
I'm fully entrenched in the Apple Ecosystem and I don't think I'd buy one. I have a 48" Sony that is only 3 years old. I've only bought two tv's in the last 12 years. Hooking a $99 appletv up to my tv works for me personally. I wonder how many folks are clamoring for this? Maybe they don't know they want it yet?
I agree in principle; a set top box makes for easier adoption, and functionality described can be duplicated.
The AppleTV really needs an update; it still feels like a beta that's "almost there".
The only reason I see the benefit of an actual AppleTV integrated into a display is that Apple would control all interfaces; right now, you have a remote for the TV, you have to select the input from a clunky menu, etc.
It would be huge if Apple integrated everything, so you have one simple remote, easy menus, etc.
Maybe it gets the a6 not the a5. I'd be ok with that.
Just throwing out some ideas, but the opportunities are endless using the television as the portal. I do hope that the 50" max isn't true. Need something a little larger, but sounds good overall. I was going to make a purchase of a new set this year, but I will wait a little longer.
One company has to lead us to the lily white future of movies and films. Apple right now is the only possible company that can do so.
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
A TV plugged in with iOS 5, using the iPad as a giant remote with TV guide, etc. Having Siri built in so that I can ask for directions or information about anything while watching a TV show in a separate window. How about sports statistics on a player while you are watching a football game. Or perhaps answering a phone call on Face time through the set, or without, while sitting not the couch. Maybe Apple will have the 3-d thing worked out where glasses are not necessary.
Just throwing out some ideas, but the opportunities are endless using the television as the portal. I do hope that the 50" max isn't true. Need something a little larger, but sounds good overall. I was going to make a purchase of a new set this year, but I will wait a little longer.
Direct TV already has the sports stats feature, but what you want out of a jumbo remote like the ipad is the ability to talk to your stupid DVR with an IR remote that has a full keyboard. Instead, apple shunned the IR remote entirely. Fail IMHO.
No one said the TV would be limited to only working within Apple's Ecosystem.. after all, cable and public channels will need to be an option as well otherwise it really would be a non-starter... like selling hydrogen powered cars with no Hydrogen refill stations...
chicken and the egg yolk
That's what I'm not getting from some of the comments here. AFAIK, no other tv manufacturer has to make content deals and stuff. It would still be a tv. Screw in a cat5 and voila - cable. Apple just needs to provide EXTRA features, not strip out all features and be tied to iTunes only.
You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
maybe it's possible to make a box that hijacks the television's controls, but that seems like it would be a "bag of hurt" with all of the different models available.
Why waste time entering information manually and going through a search engine, when all information can filter through Siri? Brilliant, Apple! And advertisers will be lining up like lost puppies to pay for this information.
Other than AI which says that it's a $100 B opportunity for Apple.
That aside, the number is irrelevant - you've missed the entire point of my post.
We have a non-product and no evidence of whether it even exists, much less price, features, availability, etc and we already have analysts projecting that Apple will play a major role in the market. That builds up ridiculous, unrealistic expectations that Apple couldn't possible meet - which means more 'Apple fails to meet targets' headlines in the future.
Pump and dump, baby!
That may just be the best idea I've ever had.
Whether or not this is true is largely irrelevant at this point. The idiot analysts are already setting up absurd expectations ($100 B in revenues? Give me a break) that it will be impossible for Apple to meet. Now, if Apple only sells $50 B of HDTVs - or doesn't sell them at all but 'only' triples profit in their existing businesses, all the analysts and media can label Apple a failure again.
You must have been laying really low for the past 5 years, but Apple is now considered the biggest, baddest and most successful tech company in the world. This whole inferiority/persecution complex really must stop.
For my sins I work as an electronics engineer coding RTL for IP for SoCs that are used in DTVs. Most, if not all of these are more complicated than Apple's magical A5. They contain multiple CPU cores along with demods, dsps and frcs ( frame rate converters, the things that do all of the 240Hz post processing nonsense ). Coupled with this is platform SW to tie the entire system together.
All of this good stuff is sold in a chip that sells for 10$ per unit. I say again, 10$ per unit for a chip that is more systemically complex than your wizzy Intel CPU that sells for 150$+ This industry is broken. Big players like Intel and Broadcom have killed development of DTV SoCs. Even the mighty Samsung are losing money in the DTV business.
The only way Apple can make money out of this is to own the chain from the headend ( broadcaster/cable company ) down to the TV in your living room. People aren't going to pay big bucks for a TV, Apple logo or not. It will need to be priced aggresively to at least compete in the market although not necessarily undercut it. Revenue, as is the case for the iPod will come from the content, not the HW.
The money will come from the advertising information that Apple will be able to provide by having a "smart" connection directly to the viewer.
Other than AI which says that it's a $100 B opportunity for Apple.
yeah, when I looked back over the article before I posted, I missed the headline...
That aside, the number is irrelevant - you've missed the entire point of my post.
You are right, analysts will inevitabily fudge up predictions of Apple's future business which will inevitably lead to annoying stock price corrections. I just didn't see evidence of that in this article yet (outside the headline that was not the fault of the analyst in question).
But I have no idea what Apple's plans are. Maybe they've got something great up their sleeve. Maybe they don't. And, frankly, I don't really care. Wake me up when there's a real product.
Here is where we actually disagree. This is a rumor site. You can't start carping about a rumor site spreading rumors without looking a little silly. Especially after it has just come out that Jobs was known to have been talking about "cracking" the TV problem not too long ago.
The rumors will swing from obvious to ridiculous but we usually have a fair idea of what is going to happen and when before it is all over. What tha analysts do with these rumors...well, that is up to them!
much smarter to stick with the AppleTV and get better content on it. Too much overhead with Televisions, too many different sizes. Or else make an iBeamer projector and make it really portable, even integrate it into AppleTV.
That may just be the best idea I've ever had.
It's so funny that you mention a projector. I thought Apple might go in that direction when it bought the "pico" domain name. It would settle the cost and space in the store issue and with many people mounting their televisions on the wall anyway, it wouldn't be too weird.
You rase a valid question. I like the idea of a tv with Siri interface elements: "TV, go to the Eagles game" or "TV, tape Breaking Bad tonight" or any of a dozen commands that force you to fumble for the remote and then hunt and peck through annoying menus...
BUT, if Apple can make that happen with a $100 add on box, why would people pay an extra thousand or two?
Also, Apple has made a killing on consumer items that we replace or upgrade every year or three. For most people, TVs are on an entirely different upgrade schedule. I would think long and hard before buying an Apple HDTV if I felt I was going to feel left out if I couldn't upgrade in three years!
Don't forget the teenage kids who now fight over the remote- Siri's brain will explode.
Of course the cable monopolies will just up their charges for broadband internet...
Bill
Possibly the thing you are not thinking of is the fact that there are people out there *without* HDTV's in their home at the moment.
I'm one of those people. At this point I have no strong desire to buy one either.
Just as most smartphone owners didn't see the value of the iPhone right away because they already had a device that filled what they thought were their needs, anyone who already has a big screen TV and all the various boxes and content hookups can't see any need to replace it.
You also have the issue of dealing with your local cable company. Really cable has to be one of the biggest rip offs in history. Some of us avoid new TVs simply because there is no additional value unless you contract with a cable service.
This brings up one issue, unless Apple is going to find a way to address the ethics issues in the cable industry I suspect they will be entering a shrinking market.
There are people out there who don't have an HDTV yet and at least some of them are not buying because they don't understand what it is they need to get or find the whole field complicated and off-putting. Apple will make an HDTV with built in content and make it so simple that your grandmother will buy it.
TVs are pretty darn simple as it is, I don't think that is an issue. What is off putting is the very high prices one pays for very low quality content.
What if they either bought Netflix or subsidised it on the TV for instance? Then any fool can buy a TV, plug it in and it already has every old movie and TV show on it you ever heard of without buying another thing. I think that would be immensely popular. Big upfront price perhaps, but once you bought it, no monthly cable bill at all.
You would still have that monthly Internet access bill. More importantly the minute you start shipping Apple HDTVs there will be complaints about bandwidth usage and lost revenue from the cable companies. The unfortunate reality is that Cable companies have a corrupt relationship with many local communities and are also the only valid supplier of high speed networking. Until the issue of reasonable high speed Internet access is addressed Apple will not be able to realize the full potential of a smart TV.
Most of the people I know with HDTV's pay something like 30 or 40 a month for Internet and then a further 69-90 for cable or TV packages. How nice would it be to just pay for the Internet hookup? This is just another step on the road to turning Cable companies, cell phone providers, and telecommunications outfits into the big dumb pipes they should be.
That would be I seal but these companies will not give up easily. Apple would need to start acquiring such companies to force realization upon the industry that people rather not be nickel and dimmed to death. The reality is that in some locations your numbers are actually low, people spend hundreds a month and frankly are getting tired of the quality they get in return. In many locals cable companies have been loosing customers faster than they have been gaining them.
So yeah in an ideal world the cable company would be any different than you water supply. A service that in this case delivers photons or electrons to your house. Frankly I wouldn't mind paying by the bit just like I pay by the gallon for water. The rates have to be reasonable though. In the end I suspect legislation and directly dealing with corruption is in order. As big as Apple is I don't see them making huge changes in this industry even with all the cash they have.
It might gain traction because it is made by Apple over the short term but long term it won't be worth it, unless of course you can fold it up and take it to some place remote and set it up in less than two minutes and use it with a solar panel and is connected via satellite feed.