You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
So it does add up, and Apple is targeting these very customers with the new offering. Again, better buy some AAPL before you miss the train.
While I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, I did find them very interesting.
In my home I have four HDTVs and only one is over 22". There are many places where I can see the typical family having/wanting TVs that they wouldn't want being large. Which, makes me wonder if most people have already fulfilled their small TV needs and thus the reason that only about 10-15% of televisions sold are below 30".
As for the Google thing. Is this even news? Seriously, "major executive in company predicts that his company will dominate a market in the future," isn't even news anymore. It is after reading things like this and practically anything spewing from Ballmer's mouth that I am glad Apple is as tight lipped as they are.
Anything running Android is a Trojan Horse. Google does not make a penny on Android, yet Google is not a charity. Therefore, they have plans to monetize Android in the future. This stage of Android is called expansion, aka "grabbing the market share." They are trying to put Android on as many devices and platforms as they can as quickly as possible by offering it to OEMs for no cost. OEMs eat it up because Android is free for them, so their development costs are minimized compared to having to develop and maintain their own software platform.
Free cheese only occurs in a mouse trap - never forget this. The more people buy and use Android devices, the more reach Google will have in the future when they start monetizing Android. Does everyone remember how Google makes money? Advertizements! So, be my guest and spend your personal money and time on acquiring, learning and getting addicted to the OS that is a foundation for Google to inundate you with advertisements in the future. In the meantime, I will stick to more expensive iOS, knowing full well that Apple imbeds a huge profit margin in their devices on the front end, but has no ulterior motives for the OS in the future. I have set up my digital life style around the Apple ecosystem, and the money that I invested on the front end of the deal will pay off in the future years.
I do not hate Google. I almost went working for them. In fact, I admire Google as a successful company. However, I never forget that Google is a high-tech advertisement agency, and advertisement is the core of their business. They have no other significant source of revenue besides advertisement, and the reason they have invested so much money into Android development is to utilize the platform to contribute to their core business - advertisement.
This is something I have been thinking about allot. In my opinion I couldn't agree with you more. Google's public motives always have this dark advertising cloud behind them. Apple freely admits that their goal is to make money via grate products and that you will buy them if you love them. If and or when Apple releases a stronger Apple TV I would imagine that apple would follow their current direction for delivering content for next to nothing as a means to make margins on the hardware. So at the end of the day what I'm getting is I think more straightforward.
With Google it's a different story. Google only understands Ad's or at least thats how it seams. I remember seeing a really funny super news video where the character takes a dump on a Google toilet to witch the toilet begins displaying adds for indian food. In my mind that kind of sums it up. I can't in good conscious get past the fact that everything I do involving Google is a means for them to subliminally sell me stuff. So at the end of the day I can't get behind Google 100% because there not making the best products for users. There expanding their market as a simple means to expand there advertising and revenue network.
I don't hate Google. There a spectacular company that has delivered some simply amazing products. Im just on comfortable with portions of there business model and what they are required to do in order to make that model successful.
All the major manufacturers (Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, LG, Sony etc) have their own "Smart TV" platforms.
There would have to be some significant looming outside threat from a company able to disrupt their existing business for them to throw out their own platforms and coalesce around Android as the defacto standard for Smart TV's.
I wonder how long it's going to take before the SEC goes after him for making blatantly false public statements. Or shareholders get tired of his obvious lies and sue him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
It's a bold prediction and unlikely timeline. But he must have made some deals with TV manufacturers already, to even have said it at all.
Not at all. Schmidt has a history of talking out of is rear - and he's gotten away with it for far too long.
You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
So it does add up, and Apple is targeting these very customers with the new offering. Again, better buy some AAPL before you miss the train.
Just as with computers, it's misleading to talk only about numbers. Look at the total value of TVs in each bracket. TV OEMs are making far more money on the large TVs than your numbers would suggest - because the large TVs cost so much more.
It's also misleading in the context of this thread. The larger TVs are more likely to have the extra electronics to make them 'smart' TVs.
The question one has to ask is: "Do I want GoogleTV in my TV?" For me the answer is hell no.
I just want a high quality big-ass screen that's as dumb as a brick. All it needs is 1 HDMI and component inputs. I will provide the content myself, thank you.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I enjoy my Panasonic Plasma and separate Blu-Ray player (and no I don't have a vested interested in that particulur manufacture). The upside is I can connect them with a single HDMI cable and they integrate nicely with one remote. That I like, because it's both easy and it works (very Apple-like). Plus I was able to select each separate component from multiple available ones. And while I do have access to Viera Cast content, I only use a small number of it's features. The down side is I have two separate components and an extra cable and power cord, plus I am effectively locked out of other content that is manufacturer specific.
Why is this relevant to SmartTVs? There appear to be both strengths and limitations to SmartTVs. A SmartTV eliminates a separate box, but currently ties you to a 'content' provider. The latter limits functionality. In addition, most likely the content provider hardware/software/firmware will reach end of software upgradability and/or usefulness long before the display portion of a SmartTV does.
Think of the TV/VCR/DVD combos that eliminated multiple components and remotes, but was also limited by manufacturer and screen size. And being mechanical devices, the DVD and/or VCR usually died before the TV itself did.
As for myself, I want to pick and choose the TV manufacture, screen size, features as well as plasma vs. LCD. I don't see being able to do that with any SmartTVs. Most importantly, I want my TV to have the ability to receive any/and all programming, not just Google or Netflix or Amazon or Pandora. It's too limiting and a separate box would work better for me, not to mention the ability to instantly upgrade your TV to a 'smart' one. Seems to be a plus for the consumer, but a negative for content provides (that inherent 'lock-in' process).
Google watches and tracks everything we do now on their services. Why would anyone want them to track, save, and potentially sell everything you watch, DVR, and search on your tv? Thsts not for me, I'd trust Apple or the tv manufactures system more than google.
I would hate to see my web browsing habits be used to tailor my TV commercials. I would hate to see my TV watching habits tailor my spam email. And yes.....your email content is scanned by google to tailor your spam mail.
I don't want google on my tv trying to show me more ads and selling my viewing data. I want a company that makes something because they want it and it's cool. Not one whoa trying to get in my living room for market data
It's a bold prediction and unlikely timeline. But he must have made some deals with TV manufacturers already, to even have said it at all.
Yes. That is the only possibility.
The TV sets that will be in stores next summer are already well underway, at the least they have completed the circuitry design. Maybe the entire design except for non-physical aspects. Likely the tooling and molds and other factory stuff is in production right now.
Utter BS. Look at the number of TVs sold below US$250. Unless some new subsidised model appears really soon and is accepted by consumers en mass then the numbers don't add up. BOM costs matter Eric
All google has to do is give it away for free. They don't make money in hardware or software sales anyway. Plenty of idiots will fall for the free and doesn't really care about the data mining portion of Google conditions.
There's a lot more to the cost than simply the cost of an LSi chip. Engineering work to redesign things. Training of all their tech support people. Handling 10,000 tech support calls per day from people who can't figure out how to do something. Extra quality checks. Overhead costs. Increased rework costs. And lots more.
Besides, even the cost of the LSi chip itself is significant on a $250 TV.
The question one has to ask is: "Do I want GoogleTV in my TV?" For me the answer is hell no.
I just want a high quality big-ass screen that's as dumb as a brick. All it needs is 1 HDMI and component inputs. I will provide the content myself, thank you.
I'm with you 110% on this. What concerns me is if Google did, in fact, ink some deals with all the major players in the TV arena, what kind of choice is that going to leave us with. For example, I'm a fan of Sony TVs (and always have been). I really wouldn't even consider buying a TV from any of the other 1st or 2nd tier brands with the exception of Panasonic or Sharp. So, by choice, I've already limited myself to a handful of manufacturers. Additionally, I typically get a model at or near the top-of-the-line for performance reasons. I would hate to have to consider a Google equipped model because it also happens to be the one that has all the best specs/performance features. Conversely, I would hate to have to excluded a model that would otherwise be perfect for me just because it's powered by Ggle.
This may be just me, but I think Google needs to be put in their place. They're getting a little too big for their britches. I'm sure you've all seen this before, but I'll link to it again http://vimeo.com/9897083. Seems to be even more relevant now, after 2 years.
The TV sets that will be in stores next summer are already well underway, at the least they have completed the circuitry design. Maybe the entire design except for non-physical aspects. Likely the tooling and molds and other factory stuff is in production right now.
Every TV I've ever bought was manufactured 3-6 months before I bought it. So for them to be "in stores" by summer 2012, it's a damn good estimate of yours that they're in production now.
To be honest I think what he said is more then possible. Consider that three of the largest television makers work with Google's android, Sony, Samsung, and LG. They can easily push more of the other OEMS into doing it to compete with the rumor of the threat of an Apple T.V. The T.V.s have the hardware to do this what they will need to get is a hard drive in some of these TVs and an internet port.
Remember the man has foot in the mouth disease. So 2020 to him would be 2012
Comments
Enough with your own view of politics in an Apple blog please!
Agree with you 120%
You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
So it does add up, and Apple is targeting these very customers with the new offering. Again, better buy some AAPL before you miss the train.
While I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, I did find them very interesting.
In my home I have four HDTVs and only one is over 22". There are many places where I can see the typical family having/wanting TVs that they wouldn't want being large. Which, makes me wonder if most people have already fulfilled their small TV needs and thus the reason that only about 10-15% of televisions sold are below 30".
As for the Google thing. Is this even news? Seriously, "major executive in company predicts that his company will dominate a market in the future," isn't even news anymore. It is after reading things like this and practically anything spewing from Ballmer's mouth that I am glad Apple is as tight lipped as they are.
Anything running Android is a Trojan Horse. Google does not make a penny on Android, yet Google is not a charity. Therefore, they have plans to monetize Android in the future. This stage of Android is called expansion, aka "grabbing the market share." They are trying to put Android on as many devices and platforms as they can as quickly as possible by offering it to OEMs for no cost. OEMs eat it up because Android is free for them, so their development costs are minimized compared to having to develop and maintain their own software platform.
Free cheese only occurs in a mouse trap - never forget this. The more people buy and use Android devices, the more reach Google will have in the future when they start monetizing Android. Does everyone remember how Google makes money? Advertizements! So, be my guest and spend your personal money and time on acquiring, learning and getting addicted to the OS that is a foundation for Google to inundate you with advertisements in the future. In the meantime, I will stick to more expensive iOS, knowing full well that Apple imbeds a huge profit margin in their devices on the front end, but has no ulterior motives for the OS in the future. I have set up my digital life style around the Apple ecosystem, and the money that I invested on the front end of the deal will pay off in the future years.
I do not hate Google. I almost went working for them. In fact, I admire Google as a successful company. However, I never forget that Google is a high-tech advertisement agency, and advertisement is the core of their business. They have no other significant source of revenue besides advertisement, and the reason they have invested so much money into Android development is to utilize the platform to contribute to their core business - advertisement.
This is something I have been thinking about allot. In my opinion I couldn't agree with you more. Google's public motives always have this dark advertising cloud behind them. Apple freely admits that their goal is to make money via grate products and that you will buy them if you love them. If and or when Apple releases a stronger Apple TV I would imagine that apple would follow their current direction for delivering content for next to nothing as a means to make margins on the hardware. So at the end of the day what I'm getting is I think more straightforward.
With Google it's a different story. Google only understands Ad's or at least thats how it seams. I remember seeing a really funny super news video where the character takes a dump on a Google toilet to witch the toilet begins displaying adds for indian food. In my mind that kind of sums it up. I can't in good conscious get past the fact that everything I do involving Google is a means for them to subliminally sell me stuff. So at the end of the day I can't get behind Google 100% because there not making the best products for users. There expanding their market as a simple means to expand there advertising and revenue network.
I don't hate Google. There a spectacular company that has delivered some simply amazing products. Im just on comfortable with portions of there business model and what they are required to do in order to make that model successful.
This is madness!
All the major manufacturers (Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, LG, Sony etc) have their own "Smart TV" platforms.
There would have to be some significant looming outside threat from a company able to disrupt their existing business for them to throw out their own platforms and coalesce around Android as the defacto standard for Smart TV's.
I wonder how long it's going to take before the SEC goes after him for making blatantly false public statements. Or shareholders get tired of his obvious lies and sue him.
It's a bold prediction and unlikely timeline. But he must have made some deals with TV manufacturers already, to even have said it at all.
Not at all. Schmidt has a history of talking out of is rear - and he's gotten away with it for far too long.
You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
So it does add up, and Apple is targeting these very customers with the new offering. Again, better buy some AAPL before you miss the train.
Just as with computers, it's misleading to talk only about numbers. Look at the total value of TVs in each bracket. TV OEMs are making far more money on the large TVs than your numbers would suggest - because the large TVs cost so much more.
It's also misleading in the context of this thread. The larger TVs are more likely to have the extra electronics to make them 'smart' TVs.
The question one has to ask is: "Do I want GoogleTV in my TV?" For me the answer is hell no.
I just want a high quality big-ass screen that's as dumb as a brick. All it needs is 1 HDMI and component inputs. I will provide the content myself, thank you.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I enjoy my Panasonic Plasma and separate Blu-Ray player (and no I don't have a vested interested in that particulur manufacture). The upside is I can connect them with a single HDMI cable and they integrate nicely with one remote. That I like, because it's both easy and it works (very Apple-like). Plus I was able to select each separate component from multiple available ones. And while I do have access to Viera Cast content, I only use a small number of it's features. The down side is I have two separate components and an extra cable and power cord, plus I am effectively locked out of other content that is manufacturer specific.
Why is this relevant to SmartTVs? There appear to be both strengths and limitations to SmartTVs. A SmartTV eliminates a separate box, but currently ties you to a 'content' provider. The latter limits functionality. In addition, most likely the content provider hardware/software/firmware will reach end of software upgradability and/or usefulness long before the display portion of a SmartTV does.
Think of the TV/VCR/DVD combos that eliminated multiple components and remotes, but was also limited by manufacturer and screen size. And being mechanical devices, the DVD and/or VCR usually died before the TV itself did.
As for myself, I want to pick and choose the TV manufacture, screen size, features as well as plasma vs. LCD. I don't see being able to do that with any SmartTVs. Most importantly, I want my TV to have the ability to receive any/and all programming, not just Google or Netflix or Amazon or Pandora. It's too limiting and a separate box would work better for me, not to mention the ability to instantly upgrade your TV to a 'smart' one. Seems to be a plus for the consumer, but a negative for content provides (that inherent 'lock-in' process).
For me, the debate is over before it's started.
Not something I would ever buy.
It's a bold prediction and unlikely timeline. But he must have made some deals with TV manufacturers already, to even have said it at all.
Yes. That is the only possibility.
The TV sets that will be in stores next summer are already well underway, at the least they have completed the circuitry design. Maybe the entire design except for non-physical aspects. Likely the tooling and molds and other factory stuff is in production right now.
Utter BS. Look at the number of TVs sold below US$250. Unless some new subsidised model appears really soon and is accepted by consumers en mass then the numbers don't add up. BOM costs matter Eric
What is the cost of an LSI chip?
What is the cost of an LSI chip?
There's a lot more to the cost than simply the cost of an LSi chip. Engineering work to redesign things. Training of all their tech support people. Handling 10,000 tech support calls per day from people who can't figure out how to do something. Extra quality checks. Overhead costs. Increased rework costs. And lots more.
Besides, even the cost of the LSi chip itself is significant on a $250 TV.
The question one has to ask is: "Do I want GoogleTV in my TV?" For me the answer is hell no.
I just want a high quality big-ass screen that's as dumb as a brick. All it needs is 1 HDMI and component inputs. I will provide the content myself, thank you.
I'm with you 110% on this. What concerns me is if Google did, in fact, ink some deals with all the major players in the TV arena, what kind of choice is that going to leave us with. For example, I'm a fan of Sony TVs (and always have been). I really wouldn't even consider buying a TV from any of the other 1st or 2nd tier brands with the exception of Panasonic or Sharp. So, by choice, I've already limited myself to a handful of manufacturers. Additionally, I typically get a model at or near the top-of-the-line for performance reasons. I would hate to have to consider a Google equipped model because it also happens to be the one that has all the best specs/performance features. Conversely, I would hate to have to excluded a model that would otherwise be perfect for me just because it's powered by G
This may be just me, but I think Google needs to be put in their place. They're getting a little too big for their britches. I'm sure you've all seen this before, but I'll link to it again http://vimeo.com/9897083. Seems to be even more relevant now, after 2 years.
Yes. That is the only possibility.
The TV sets that will be in stores next summer are already well underway, at the least they have completed the circuitry design. Maybe the entire design except for non-physical aspects. Likely the tooling and molds and other factory stuff is in production right now.
Every TV I've ever bought was manufactured 3-6 months before I bought it. So for them to be "in stores" by summer 2012, it's a damn good estimate of yours that they're in production now.
Remember the man has foot in the mouth disease. So 2020 to him would be 2012
Unless Google has some serious content and OEM deals secretly in the works this is impossible.
a lot of Android users are A-Holes and do their best to block ads,
Does that include those who use Ghostery and Click to Flash?