I mean TV's on store shelves as per the article we're all commenting on. No one is claiming Goolge is going to go to every persons house and swap out the internals of every single TV in existence in the next 12 months.
Sorry I forgot the wink. I was trying to be funny.
If you want just a little idea of how invasive google is, try turning on Parental Controls on your mac and see how often something tries to reach google servers. Every click on Appleinsider tries to send to https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net. And no this is not by clicking the advertisements. This comes up when you go to the next page in the comments, when you login into the site, literally every 'click'.
It is not just Appleinsider. Try it out, and even if you know google collects, I think you will still be surprised as to how pervasive their collection actually is.
Now imagine that on your TV. Continual passive collection regardless.
As a side note, I installed Google talk plug-in for safari and it reaches out to google and google.maps even when safari is closed. Yeah, its been since removed.
Little snitch will get those that start from your computer but it didn't show all the times that data is sent by a site.
did those Q1/2011 sales exceed the total number of TVs ever sold? Put another way, what % do these sales represent in terms of overall TV ownership?
We could play the numbers game all day long.
We could but thats not relevant to future sales. It proves that momentum is towards large LCD TVs. The installed base of small (and tube) TVs will be overtaken eventually, and they wouldn't be relevant to the specific market anyway.
BTW, although I am sure that Apple - as a manufacturing company - will make boatloads of money from it's TV it probably is never going to get immediate momentum, enough to take down anymore than 1-2% of the market in 2012. Couldn't build them fast enough. It never built them before. If google releases an adequate enough OS for TV's, and Apple scares the competition to all go to Google on at least one of their products, Schmidt could well be right. Unlike the release of the iPhone, Apple now know they have an immediate competitor. Going into the market as a sole manufacturer/provider will cede the market to Google by Apple's very presence.
The thinking outside the box ( for Apple) would be strategic licences of iOS TV. Thats the only way to get traction. No reason to not also produce your own set, possibly at an agreed premium ( Apple does the largest screens and takes the highest margins). However, Apple can start to think of iOS TV as a software service, they benefit from not just the sale of the OS, but all subsequent sales on the box via the various stores - apps, videos, music and so on.
If Apple don't think like that - think like Google and Amazon - in the TV space, they will sell a million TVs in their first quarter, add to their books, increase their margins, and within a year there are 100M Google TVs opposing them.
Time to become a software services company, apple.
You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Any incorrect public statement (or failure to make a public statement of a material fact) which is material can get you in trouble. And speaking at a conference is public.
Not only was his transgression not in a conference call or SEC filing as you've claimed, but he didn't make any public statement at all.
Not at all. When CEOs publish guidance, there is always a statement that the information is forward looking and is based on current belief but may change. Schmidt made no such statement.
Apparently, you think that every off-the-cuff statement made by any executive will constitute a false statement with material impact to the stock price. While executives should watch what they say, I haven't seen too many courts that hold any executives to that high a standard. I'd also like to see how you're going to prove damages resulting from Schmidt's comments. Did the stock jump 50% based on his comments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't need to. As a past corporate officer, I've been well trained in legal requirements. Furthermore, I am able to back my assertions (see above) while you are apparently incapable of anything but whining and bizarre accusations.
If you're that confident in your legal acumen, there's an opportunity to make money here. Buy a few shares in Google and launch a massive class action lawsuit when the prediction doesn't come true.
Surely, being a "corporate officer" with training in "legal requirements" has given you the equivalent knowledge of actually trained legal counsel, that you seem to be projecting. Go on, put your hatred of Google to good use.
Being told by your attorney to watch certain statements and shred your work after you're done does not make you a legal expert of any sort. Get off your ridiculously high horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
First, Schmidt says that the majority will have Google inside - and that the number will continue to grow.
I think he's wrong. But there's no way of knowing for sure if he is. Neither of us is privy to the discussions he may or may not be having with TV OEMs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, I never said it was going to happen (personally, I think Schmidt is absolutely wrong). I said what I would do IF it happens. Do you need me to look up a definition of 'if' for you?
You painted a ridiculously paranoid picture. I challenged the likelihood of said hypothetical reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's a tautology (look it up). Obviously, if the TVs get better, it's better for consumers. However:
1. I don't believe there's any sign that Google TV is any better than the alternatives.
2. I don't think you can ignore the fact that Google's entire business plan is based on learning everything it can about you and selling that information to the highest bidder. Because of that, even if the UI were better (which isn't likely, considering what we've seen from Google so far), the downside might mean that the entire package is NOT better for the consumer.
Your opinion. I've used a few Smart TVs. None are as good as the Google TV interface I've played with. Most work on a similar principle to Apple TV. Let you access certain apps to stream content from certain sources. Nothing that lets you actually search for shows. How many of these smart TVs interact with the channel guide? And even for what they do, they suck. I don't find any of their interfaces as good as Apple TV. Honestly, how many smart TVs have you played with? And have you actually ever touched a Google TV box?
Your second point is immaterial to the discussion at hand. We all know Google makes money through advertising. Yet other than a paranoid few, most regular folks don't seem to care. People go right on using Google Search, GMail, Google Maps, etc. everyday. Heck, Facebook is far worse and it's still growing. And now Apple is in the game too with iAds. Unless you're part of the tin-foil hat paranoid crowd, this is just part of reality. I'm not going to junk my Mac, my Apple TV, my Time Capsule and my iPods just because Apple might possibly use some keywords from some of my content to put up ads somewhere on an Apple device I might use down the road. Similarly, I'm not going to give up GMail or Google Search because Google will put up more relevant text ads with my search results. Most reasonable people consider the trade-off between the service being provided and the loss of privacy to be reasonable. Certainly, for all the paranoia about Google or Facebook, why is it that there's no actual market based competitor with a privacy first sales pitch? If people care so much about their privacy, why aren't paid email services more popular? Why isn't there an ad-free competitor to Facebook? Personally, the most offensive advertising to me is the crap that Coke, Pepsi, etc. pull with schools. And there we've actually seen schools ban vending machines. How come we haven't see that kind of outrage over web services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nice one. You have no idea of what an Apple branded TV would look like. You have no idea of any features or benefits. You have no idea what it would cost. But you already know you won't buy one. And you have the gall to call me irrational?
Hey. I'm going on what's talked about on AI. If the scuttlebutt is that it's going to be an actual TV with a new UI, I'm just suggesting it might not have enough for me to ditch my plain old Samsung. A better UI to me isn't worth thousands of dollars. But if Apple changes the whole TV viewing paradigm, that's something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The fact is that I know what a Google TV would look like. There are examples out there.
Care to list the ones you've actually used? Or are you pre-judging just because you know, you hate Google and everything the produce must suck right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And I know Google's privacy policies and what they do with my data. I've made a reasoned, rational decision not to buy their product.
Good for you. Some old ladies choose to live with lots of cats. They consider that quite rational too. And I'm sure the paranoid anti-government gun nuts living in rural West Virgina think they've got it all it figured out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You, OTOH, have made an irrational decision based on a non-product and no information - solely because you hate Apple.
What are you on about? I said "if" (surely you understand the word "if") the prospective Apple TVs innovation was UI and not some change in the content consumption paradigm that it wouldn't be my cup of tea. You've somehow taken that to mean that I've already decided not to buy the thing (whatever it is) and that I "hate" Apple. What nonsense. I assure you, that unlike you, I have my faculties intact and don't harbour irrational hatred to random corporate entities that scarcely impact my day-to-day existence. I'm not the guy who's going to check under my bed for the Google man before I go to bed.
Don't assume that just because I don't absolutely love Apple as much as you and hate Google as much as you do, that I'm automatically a Google fanboy and a Apple hater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm glad you proved what a bigot you are.
Says the guy who hates a random corporate entity. I on the other hand have spent thousands of dollars on Apple stuff. The only Google "thing" I own is my phone. And that costs a fraction of the amount I've sent to Apple over the years. Not being an absolute fangirl does not make me a bigot (and I don't know if it's sad, hilarious or disturbing that you consider like or dislike of a random corporation to be on par with actual bigotry). You on the other hand extend your hatred of Google and its policies to automatically assume that every single one of their future services and products will automatically be a failure.
I've been thinking about dropping cable altogether, this will hasten my decision. Hell, we just got a new cable box, but not one of the new ones the installers said were coming next year. Every box I've ever seen was a Motorola. The Motorola boxes we have are junk. Ah, well, as somebody pointed out, there's not much on tv anyways. I do hate loathe and despise my cable provider.
It's not a bad idea to drop cable. Now that you can get most networks in HD over the air, why not? I'm considering it myself when my cable contract ends in 2012. Apple TV and a Tivo (to PVR shows) hooked up to an OTA antenna is plenty for me.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
I've thought about this too. Ever since I got an Apple TV, I've always wondered why there wasn't just one box from which to control my TV viewing experience. Naturally, some of this has to do with the cablecos. They don't exactly have an interest in Apple (or Google or anybody else) controlling the TV viewing experience. That means less revenue for them. Pay-per-view is still huge for the cablecos. And an Apple TV in the middle with iTunes and Netflix would kill their profits. This is exactly why the networks blocked Hulu on Google TV so fast. The cablecos probably would have revolted if Google TV was tolerated.
I wonder if Apple has found a way to cut a deal with the cablecos, the same way they cut a deal with AT&T for the iPhone. So now there could be just one iTV box, that acts as your DVD/Blu-Ray player, your PVR/DVR/Tivo, your cable receiver, your Apple TV box and your Home Theare amp, all in one. Yours free with a 2 year contract from the cableco. Plug in everything into your iTV box and one HDMI to your TV. For sound, maybe they created some kind of iTV compatibility standards for home theatre systems. One step further might be to integrate that box into the TV. But that might involve ditching Blu-Ray (which many people still like despite Apple's stance on the tech) and possibly making TV panels thicker.
As interesting as all that would be though, I'm still skeptical how much people will pay just to mess with less wires in the back. I still think there's gotta more to all this than just less wires. They must have had some idea on how to ditch cable as we know it today.
2012 is the real battle for the living room. Apple will release iTV and like the original ipad, the price will surprise. I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri. Android/Amazon $199, with ads + smaller screen. What's the component cost of a 42in flat screen vs. you doing all your shopping through my store?
TVs today have something like 10-15% margins at retail. And several OEMs are actually losing money on TV manufacturing. I don't think Apple could change the economic TV manufacturing that drastically. Maybe a 50 incher for $1000. But that'd be the limit, I would think. This is all assuming that it's an actual TV and not some device or even some other service.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
No, you're not the only one. The moment Siri was introduced with the iPhone 4S, I started daydreaming about how the technology could revolutionize how we control and interact with our entertainment systems. An A/V receiver such as the one you describe would be a great way to do it. However, looking at how Apple does things, I don't see how such a device could so seamlessly integrate into an A/V setup without at least some configuration involved.
If we take your A/V receiver idea for example, we can assume that it will need a way to control the TV and any attached sources. This will have to be done either via IR, serial, IP or over HDMI. This is where it can get complicated. It wouldn't just work out of the box, it'll need to be installed and then configured. Going down this path is where the experience can really become un-Apple-like.
Personally, I would be happy with some kind of Siri-based control processor akin to something you would find in an integrated control system from companies like AMX, Crestron, Control 4, RTI, etc... This way, you'd have a "brain" that would have a number of IR, Serial and IP ports and you'd be able to configure it to control virtually any TV, A/V receiver or source. Either way, whether it's a standalone brain or built into an A/V receiver like you suggest, I think it would have the potential to be pretty awesome.
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.
I still don't get the all in TV solution, to me AppleTV, PS3, XBox, Roku, or other solutions are a better deal. Plop down 1,000 bucks on a TV, then next month the new version comes out. Oh crap, I didn't know they were gonna add telepathic channel changing! Guess I gotta plop down another 1,000 to get that feature!
I can grab an AppleTV for 100 bucks, then from my iPad I can mirror all kinds of apps to the screen or stream video content. To me that is far more smartTV than most of these up & coming TVs and I don't have to plop down anywhere near $1,000 to get those features.
Someone please explain it to me, I'm just not getting it.
I still don't get the all in TV solution, to me AppleTV, PS3, XBox, Roku, or other solutions are a better deal. Plop down 1,000 bucks on a TV, then next month the new version comes out. Oh crap, I didn't know they were gonna add telepathic channel changing! Guess I gotta plop down another 1,000 to get that feature!
I can grab an AppleTV for 100 bucks, then from my iPad I can mirror all kinds of apps to the screen or stream video content. To me that is far more smartTV than most of these up & coming TVs and I don't have to plop down anywhere near $1,000 to get those features.
Someone please explain it to me, I'm just not getting it.
You have to think beyond what is available now. You just listed a half dozen additional things that I have to hook up to my television in order to give it content, and a processor to use it. The applications are endless if Siri was a part of a television from controlling channels, content, entertainment, shopping, your home, networking, etc. This doesn't even account for the strides that will be made within AI interaction.
For most, the television is the central piece of entertainment in the home. If you could control everything from that 'command center' virtually, at a reasonable cost, that's the future. Apple TV, Xbox, PS3....all small stepping stones to the larger picture. The fact that Amazon 'coincidentally' just picked up Yap, should tell you where these companies are thinking.
You have to think beyond what is available now. You just listed a half dozen additional things that I have to hook up to my television in order to give it content, and a processor to use it. The applications are endless if Siri was a part of a television from controlling channels, content, entertainment, shopping, your home, networking, etc. This doesn't even account for the strides that will be made within AI interaction.
For most, the television is the central piece of entertainment in the home. If you could control everything from that 'command center' virtually, at a reasonable cost, that's the future. Apple TV, Xbox, PS3....all small stepping stones to the larger picture. The fact that Amazon 'coincidentally' just picked up Yap, should tell you where these companies are thinking.
That makes more sense, I can see your point. However, people already have peripheral devices & smart TVs aren't going to change that in the slightest. Nobody is ditching their console or blu-ray player just cause their TV is now "smart". I get that StarTrek is cool but I think we are still years away from the immersive experience you are describing. In the mean time why not test that market with a few tweaks to a $100 device rather than pour a ton of money into baking it into a TV.
That makes more sense, I can see your point. However, people already have peripheral devices & smart TVs aren't going to change that in the slightest. Nobody is ditching their console or blu-ray player just cause their TV is now "smart". I get that StarTrek is cool but I think we are still years away from the immersive experience you are describing. In the mean time why not test that market with a few tweaks to a $100 device rather than pour a ton of money into baking it into a TV.
I'd probably have to disagree with you. Before Jobs reinvented Apple's computer lineup over the past decade, the market was flooded with box top PC's. The same old same old crap...box, monitor, keyboard, dangling wires, crappy OS, etc. Along comes the iMac, Mac Pro, OSX and Apple Stores that revolutionized the way the desktop computer was viewed, from aesthetics, to foot print, to internal design to operation. It had a premium price tag and the rest is history.
Fast forward to today's LCD market. It's the same crap over and over and over again. Innovation is at a halt. You have no idea where one LCD starts and the other stops. Samsung, as well as most other vendors, still offers 3D glasses at $79 each? What's up with that? Home networking is clunky at best in terms of streaming, and no television interacts well or consistently with my external devices. Its become a lame duck industry.
Now if you enter a new wave television with top of the line panel, resolution, voice control, apple TV, 3D without glasses, super slim form factor, true OS style integration of the internet, games and full functionality with all external devices, with iCloud support, that is simple to use? I've got a 2 year old 55" Samsung LCD right now that I'm looking to upgrade, and I'll be waiting until the end of 2012 to do it.
As I've said before, if you don't have Apple stock before it happens, you'll regret it.
After last year's struggles, Google may have a hard time convincing HDTV makers to adopt the Android-based platform, especially since a number of vendors have developed their own competing "smart TV" platforms. South Korea's Samsung unveiled a "digital hub" strategy earlier this year that centers around cloud-based televisions. Panasonic and Sony have also designed their own interfaces for their sets.
They don't look to be having to hard a time convincing TV makers.
Comments
Come on... really?
I mean TV's on store shelves as per the article we're all commenting on. No one is claiming Goolge is going to go to every persons house and swap out the internals of every single TV in existence in the next 12 months.
Sorry I forgot the wink. I was trying to be funny.
Stop being argumentative and use some common sense. Clearly the poster meant that the majority of TVs SOLD in 2012 will be smart TVs.
I forgot the wink.
It is not just Appleinsider. Try it out, and even if you know google collects, I think you will still be surprised as to how pervasive their collection actually is.
Now imagine that on your TV. Continual passive collection regardless.
As a side note, I installed Google talk plug-in for safari and it reaches out to google and google.maps even when safari is closed. Yeah, its been since removed.
Little snitch will get those that start from your computer but it didn't show all the times that data is sent by a site.
AND...
what were total sales of TVs in Q1/2011?
did those Q1/2011 sales exceed the total number of TVs ever sold? Put another way, what % do these sales represent in terms of overall TV ownership?
We could play the numbers game all day long.
We could but thats not relevant to future sales. It proves that momentum is towards large LCD TVs. The installed base of small (and tube) TVs will be overtaken eventually, and they wouldn't be relevant to the specific market anyway.
The thinking outside the box ( for Apple) would be strategic licences of iOS TV. Thats the only way to get traction. No reason to not also produce your own set, possibly at an agreed premium ( Apple does the largest screens and takes the highest margins). However, Apple can start to think of iOS TV as a software service, they benefit from not just the sale of the OS, but all subsequent sales on the box via the various stores - apps, videos, music and so on.
If Apple don't think like that - think like Google and Amazon - in the TV space, they will sell a million TVs in their first quarter, add to their books, increase their margins, and within a year there are 100M Google TVs opposing them.
Time to become a software services company, apple.
You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Any incorrect public statement (or failure to make a public statement of a material fact) which is material can get you in trouble. And speaking at a conference is public.
Look it up:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7003/Fraud.html
Not only was his transgression not in a conference call or SEC filing as you've claimed, but he didn't make any public statement at all.
Not at all. When CEOs publish guidance, there is always a statement that the information is forward looking and is based on current belief but may change. Schmidt made no such statement.
Apparently, you think that every off-the-cuff statement made by any executive will constitute a false statement with material impact to the stock price. While executives should watch what they say, I haven't seen too many courts that hold any executives to that high a standard. I'd also like to see how you're going to prove damages resulting from Schmidt's comments. Did the stock jump 50% based on his comments?
I don't need to. As a past corporate officer, I've been well trained in legal requirements. Furthermore, I am able to back my assertions (see above) while you are apparently incapable of anything but whining and bizarre accusations.
If you're that confident in your legal acumen, there's an opportunity to make money here. Buy a few shares in Google and launch a massive class action lawsuit when the prediction doesn't come true.
Surely, being a "corporate officer" with training in "legal requirements" has given you the equivalent knowledge of actually trained legal counsel, that you seem to be projecting. Go on, put your hatred of Google to good use.
Being told by your attorney to watch certain statements and shred your work after you're done does not make you a legal expert of any sort. Get off your ridiculously high horse.
First, Schmidt says that the majority will have Google inside - and that the number will continue to grow.
I think he's wrong. But there's no way of knowing for sure if he is. Neither of us is privy to the discussions he may or may not be having with TV OEMs.
More importantly, I never said it was going to happen (personally, I think Schmidt is absolutely wrong). I said what I would do IF it happens. Do you need me to look up a definition of 'if' for you?
You painted a ridiculously paranoid picture. I challenged the likelihood of said hypothetical reality.
That's a tautology (look it up). Obviously, if the TVs get better, it's better for consumers. However:
1. I don't believe there's any sign that Google TV is any better than the alternatives.
2. I don't think you can ignore the fact that Google's entire business plan is based on learning everything it can about you and selling that information to the highest bidder. Because of that, even if the UI were better (which isn't likely, considering what we've seen from Google so far), the downside might mean that the entire package is NOT better for the consumer.
Your opinion. I've used a few Smart TVs. None are as good as the Google TV interface I've played with. Most work on a similar principle to Apple TV. Let you access certain apps to stream content from certain sources. Nothing that lets you actually search for shows. How many of these smart TVs interact with the channel guide? And even for what they do, they suck. I don't find any of their interfaces as good as Apple TV. Honestly, how many smart TVs have you played with? And have you actually ever touched a Google TV box?
Your second point is immaterial to the discussion at hand. We all know Google makes money through advertising. Yet other than a paranoid few, most regular folks don't seem to care. People go right on using Google Search, GMail, Google Maps, etc. everyday. Heck, Facebook is far worse and it's still growing. And now Apple is in the game too with iAds. Unless you're part of the tin-foil hat paranoid crowd, this is just part of reality. I'm not going to junk my Mac, my Apple TV, my Time Capsule and my iPods just because Apple might possibly use some keywords from some of my content to put up ads somewhere on an Apple device I might use down the road. Similarly, I'm not going to give up GMail or Google Search because Google will put up more relevant text ads with my search results. Most reasonable people consider the trade-off between the service being provided and the loss of privacy to be reasonable. Certainly, for all the paranoia about Google or Facebook, why is it that there's no actual market based competitor with a privacy first sales pitch? If people care so much about their privacy, why aren't paid email services more popular? Why isn't there an ad-free competitor to Facebook? Personally, the most offensive advertising to me is the crap that Coke, Pepsi, etc. pull with schools. And there we've actually seen schools ban vending machines. How come we haven't see that kind of outrage over web services?
Nice one. You have no idea of what an Apple branded TV would look like. You have no idea of any features or benefits. You have no idea what it would cost. But you already know you won't buy one. And you have the gall to call me irrational?
Hey. I'm going on what's talked about on AI. If the scuttlebutt is that it's going to be an actual TV with a new UI, I'm just suggesting it might not have enough for me to ditch my plain old Samsung. A better UI to me isn't worth thousands of dollars. But if Apple changes the whole TV viewing paradigm, that's something else.
The fact is that I know what a Google TV would look like. There are examples out there.
Care to list the ones you've actually used? Or are you pre-judging just because you know, you hate Google and everything the produce must suck right?
And I know Google's privacy policies and what they do with my data. I've made a reasoned, rational decision not to buy their product.
Good for you. Some old ladies choose to live with lots of cats. They consider that quite rational too. And I'm sure the paranoid anti-government gun nuts living in rural West Virgina think they've got it all it figured out.
You, OTOH, have made an irrational decision based on a non-product and no information - solely because you hate Apple.
What are you on about? I said "if" (surely you understand the word "if") the prospective Apple TVs innovation was UI and not some change in the content consumption paradigm that it wouldn't be my cup of tea. You've somehow taken that to mean that I've already decided not to buy the thing (whatever it is) and that I "hate" Apple. What nonsense. I assure you, that unlike you, I have my faculties intact and don't harbour irrational hatred to random corporate entities that scarcely impact my day-to-day existence. I'm not the guy who's going to check under my bed for the Google man before I go to bed.
Don't assume that just because I don't absolutely love Apple as much as you and hate Google as much as you do, that I'm automatically a Google fanboy and a Apple hater.
I'm glad you proved what a bigot you are.
Says the guy who hates a random corporate entity. I on the other hand have spent thousands of dollars on Apple stuff. The only Google "thing" I own is my phone. And that costs a fraction of the amount I've sent to Apple over the years. Not being an absolute fangirl does not make me a bigot (and I don't know if it's sad, hilarious or disturbing that you consider like or dislike of a random corporation to be on par with actual bigotry). You on the other hand extend your hatred of Google and its policies to automatically assume that every single one of their future services and products will automatically be a failure.
I've been thinking about dropping cable altogether, this will hasten my decision. Hell, we just got a new cable box, but not one of the new ones the installers said were coming next year. Every box I've ever seen was a Motorola. The Motorola boxes we have are junk. Ah, well, as somebody pointed out, there's not much on tv anyways. I do hate loathe and despise my cable provider.
It's not a bad idea to drop cable. Now that you can get most networks in HD over the air, why not? I'm considering it myself when my cable contract ends in 2012. Apple TV and a Tivo (to PVR shows) hooked up to an OTA antenna is plenty for me.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
I've thought about this too. Ever since I got an Apple TV, I've always wondered why there wasn't just one box from which to control my TV viewing experience. Naturally, some of this has to do with the cablecos. They don't exactly have an interest in Apple (or Google or anybody else) controlling the TV viewing experience. That means less revenue for them. Pay-per-view is still huge for the cablecos. And an Apple TV in the middle with iTunes and Netflix would kill their profits. This is exactly why the networks blocked Hulu on Google TV so fast. The cablecos probably would have revolted if Google TV was tolerated.
I wonder if Apple has found a way to cut a deal with the cablecos, the same way they cut a deal with AT&T for the iPhone. So now there could be just one iTV box, that acts as your DVD/Blu-Ray player, your PVR/DVR/Tivo, your cable receiver, your Apple TV box and your Home Theare amp, all in one. Yours free with a 2 year contract from the cableco. Plug in everything into your iTV box and one HDMI to your TV. For sound, maybe they created some kind of iTV compatibility standards for home theatre systems. One step further might be to integrate that box into the TV. But that might involve ditching Blu-Ray (which many people still like despite Apple's stance on the tech) and possibly making TV panels thicker.
As interesting as all that would be though, I'm still skeptical how much people will pay just to mess with less wires in the back. I still think there's gotta more to all this than just less wires. They must have had some idea on how to ditch cable as we know it today.
2012 is the real battle for the living room. Apple will release iTV and like the original ipad, the price will surprise. I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri. Android/Amazon $199, with ads + smaller screen. What's the component cost of a 42in flat screen vs. you doing all your shopping through my store?
TVs today have something like 10-15% margins at retail. And several OEMs are actually losing money on TV manufacturing. I don't think Apple could change the economic TV manufacturing that drastically. Maybe a 50 incher for $1000. But that'd be the limit, I would think. This is all assuming that it's an actual TV and not some device or even some other service.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
No, you're not the only one. The moment Siri was introduced with the iPhone 4S, I started daydreaming about how the technology could revolutionize how we control and interact with our entertainment systems. An A/V receiver such as the one you describe would be a great way to do it. However, looking at how Apple does things, I don't see how such a device could so seamlessly integrate into an A/V setup without at least some configuration involved.
If we take your A/V receiver idea for example, we can assume that it will need a way to control the TV and any attached sources. This will have to be done either via IR, serial, IP or over HDMI. This is where it can get complicated. It wouldn't just work out of the box, it'll need to be installed and then configured. Going down this path is where the experience can really become un-Apple-like.
Personally, I would be happy with some kind of Siri-based control processor akin to something you would find in an integrated control system from companies like AMX, Crestron, Control 4, RTI, etc... This way, you'd have a "brain" that would have a number of IR, Serial and IP ports and you'd be able to configure it to control virtually any TV, A/V receiver or source. Either way, whether it's a standalone brain or built into an A/V receiver like you suggest, I think it would have the potential to be pretty awesome.
It suits him perfectly.
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.
I still don't get the all in TV solution, to me AppleTV, PS3, XBox, Roku, or other solutions are a better deal. Plop down 1,000 bucks on a TV, then next month the new version comes out. Oh crap, I didn't know they were gonna add telepathic channel changing! Guess I gotta plop down another 1,000 to get that feature!
I can grab an AppleTV for 100 bucks, then from my iPad I can mirror all kinds of apps to the screen or stream video content. To me that is far more smartTV than most of these up & coming TVs and I don't have to plop down anywhere near $1,000 to get those features.
Someone please explain it to me, I'm just not getting it.
I still don't get the all in TV solution, to me AppleTV, PS3, XBox, Roku, or other solutions are a better deal. Plop down 1,000 bucks on a TV, then next month the new version comes out. Oh crap, I didn't know they were gonna add telepathic channel changing! Guess I gotta plop down another 1,000 to get that feature!
I can grab an AppleTV for 100 bucks, then from my iPad I can mirror all kinds of apps to the screen or stream video content. To me that is far more smartTV than most of these up & coming TVs and I don't have to plop down anywhere near $1,000 to get those features.
Someone please explain it to me, I'm just not getting it.
You have to think beyond what is available now. You just listed a half dozen additional things that I have to hook up to my television in order to give it content, and a processor to use it. The applications are endless if Siri was a part of a television from controlling channels, content, entertainment, shopping, your home, networking, etc. This doesn't even account for the strides that will be made within AI interaction.
For most, the television is the central piece of entertainment in the home. If you could control everything from that 'command center' virtually, at a reasonable cost, that's the future. Apple TV, Xbox, PS3....all small stepping stones to the larger picture. The fact that Amazon 'coincidentally' just picked up Yap, should tell you where these companies are thinking.
AND...
what were total sales of TVs in Q1/2011?
did those Q1/2011 sales exceed the total number of TVs ever sold? Put another way, what % do these sales represent in terms of overall TV ownership?
We could play the numbers game all day long.
Go ahead and play with your numbers all you want. Your entire post is irrelevant to the topic.
You have to think beyond what is available now. You just listed a half dozen additional things that I have to hook up to my television in order to give it content, and a processor to use it. The applications are endless if Siri was a part of a television from controlling channels, content, entertainment, shopping, your home, networking, etc. This doesn't even account for the strides that will be made within AI interaction.
For most, the television is the central piece of entertainment in the home. If you could control everything from that 'command center' virtually, at a reasonable cost, that's the future. Apple TV, Xbox, PS3....all small stepping stones to the larger picture. The fact that Amazon 'coincidentally' just picked up Yap, should tell you where these companies are thinking.
That makes more sense, I can see your point. However, people already have peripheral devices & smart TVs aren't going to change that in the slightest. Nobody is ditching their console or blu-ray player just cause their TV is now "smart". I get that StarTrek is cool but I think we are still years away from the immersive experience you are describing. In the mean time why not test that market with a few tweaks to a $100 device rather than pour a ton of money into baking it into a TV.
That makes more sense, I can see your point. However, people already have peripheral devices & smart TVs aren't going to change that in the slightest. Nobody is ditching their console or blu-ray player just cause their TV is now "smart". I get that StarTrek is cool but I think we are still years away from the immersive experience you are describing. In the mean time why not test that market with a few tweaks to a $100 device rather than pour a ton of money into baking it into a TV.
I'd probably have to disagree with you. Before Jobs reinvented Apple's computer lineup over the past decade, the market was flooded with box top PC's. The same old same old crap...box, monitor, keyboard, dangling wires, crappy OS, etc. Along comes the iMac, Mac Pro, OSX and Apple Stores that revolutionized the way the desktop computer was viewed, from aesthetics, to foot print, to internal design to operation. It had a premium price tag and the rest is history.
Fast forward to today's LCD market. It's the same crap over and over and over again. Innovation is at a halt. You have no idea where one LCD starts and the other stops. Samsung, as well as most other vendors, still offers 3D glasses at $79 each? What's up with that? Home networking is clunky at best in terms of streaming, and no television interacts well or consistently with my external devices. Its become a lame duck industry.
Now if you enter a new wave television with top of the line panel, resolution, voice control, apple TV, 3D without glasses, super slim form factor, true OS style integration of the internet, games and full functionality with all external devices, with iCloud support, that is simple to use? I've got a 2 year old 55" Samsung LCD right now that I'm looking to upgrade, and I'll be waiting until the end of 2012 to do it.
As I've said before, if you don't have Apple stock before it happens, you'll regret it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkxYA1rgxCM
After last year's struggles, Google may have a hard time convincing HDTV makers to adopt the Android-based platform, especially since a number of vendors have developed their own competing "smart TV" platforms. South Korea's Samsung unveiled a "digital hub" strategy earlier this year that centers around cloud-based televisions. Panasonic and Sony have also designed their own interfaces for their sets.
They don't look to be having to hard a time convincing TV makers.
http://googletv.blogspot.com/2012/01...ur-living.html
http://9to5google.com/2012/01/05/goo...to-arm-and-3d/
EDIT: They've also put up another demo vid on Google TV ahead of CES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=CgU-Ju4yydA