Misek believes the Apple television will have a $1,250 average selling price and 30 percent gross margins.
Just how small of a screen are we talking about to hit that price and margin? Or does he expect Apple to use an ultra cheap (and therefore low quality) LCD?
The only thing I am sure of, is if such a product is real, Apple can announce it months in advance and not hurt themselves. This would also remove the potential for large scale leaks on the features.
I've been holding off buying a TV for a while! I can't wait for Apple to do it. My old TV has RCA connectors, so I can't use AppleTV. Getting interim TV just so that I can use AppleTV seem silly!
AppleTV using today's TVs from other makers still could mean some incompatibilities, vs. the REAL APPL TV, by whatever name, where It Just Works, Holistic Approach would be all taken care of!
With my 1st iPad to be bought soon, all maxed out, that's like a TV in every room, but then?
Who has time to watch all that TV? ?!
My other concern is? if Apple TV is Streaming, then ISPs might get into Caps, like Cell Companies, ATT + Verizon? And, if the consumers are on Metered Usage at Home, rather then Unlimited, it might be a Kill Joy, where we'd constantly be looking over our shoulders about our usage!!!! That's one of the Kill Joys about iPad (3) LTE, where the Cell Providers are looking to squeeze every bit of $$$ from their Costly Data Plans!!!
How is Apple to get around all that, unless they can become a Provider? Even if they wanted to, that takes years to built such Networks! Unless they just buy Sprint and or ATT or Verizon, and grow from there? But then there is the rest of the world, plus AntiTrust issues!
Either way, I can't wait to buy this product, no matter what Apple calls it!!! I know it'll be a huge seller, and AAPL will go up much higher, so I am not laughing at $1000 Estimates! It's more of a When, not If?.
P.S. DEAR APPLE, PLEASE MAKE ALL YOUR SCREENS, INCLUDING THIS TV THING - ANTIGLARE, ANTIGLARE, ANTIGLARE!!!!! I already know what iLookLike, iDon'tNeedAnotherMirror !!!
I'm guessing, as has been noted previously, that sizing will probably start in the 37" - 40" range. At these sizes, that price point of $1250 is double what many televisions are selling for. If it's more than a tv, it's easy to see paying more for it (for me).
With the problem Apple has had with the i in Pad with lawsuits it is time for Apple to move on. There are other letters in this alphabet and there are symbols such as the Apple sign that could be used. Possibly could be correlated with "i" when spoken. That way tv would be pronounced iTV when spoken by Apple and eventually that is how the masses would come to see the symbol when added to a noun. Reports on any new Apple thingy that used the coloured would add (i) in brackets or some short explanation until becomes the 27th letter of our alphabet.
I can see a future where a valentine's card would read,
(bee hive)
(heart)
U
Tacky, but it might work. Maybe the old colour striped could be revived for the cause.
I don't think it's a wild assumption. iTV has been very adamant and proactive in defending their name and posturing that they would never license it out, even to Apple. Knowing that Apple likes to have the same name World-Wide for their products, it's a TAME assumption....
I meant that it was a wild assumption that a TV set sold world-wide cannot be legally named the same as a TV station that exists in one particular country. This is what the court would have to decide if it ever gets that far.
Historically, you can use the same name if you are in a different business. It's arguable whether TV broadcaster and TV manufacturer are the same business. iTV would have to prove (again if it went to court), that people would be confused buying an "iTV" and thinking they bought free access to a TV station instead. Apple might be able to get around this with a simple warning label on product sold in the UK.
There is also the money factor. Apple could buy iTV (the station) tomorrow with pocket change, change the name to something else and then re-sell them in the afternoon. They would probably even lose less money in the deal than the court case would cost. iTV (despite it's bluster), would also likely accept money to change the name themselves.
My main point is just that it's far from a "done deal" or a foregone conclusion that they can't or won't call it iTV. It's debatable whether it's even a violation of any kind and even if it is, "money talks."
I mean, come on. We are talking about the largest, wealthiest company on the planet versus England's second string TV station here.
I think it's ridiculous to call the conclusion at this point.
There are thousands and thousands of TV stations around the world and most of them use some kind of letter acronym. What if when they launched the original Apple TV there was already a TV station in Afghanistan or Congo Republic called AppleTV? Would you still think it a sure thing that Apple wouldn't be allowed to use that name? Do you think anyone would be arguing that "Apple can't do that?"
In the "science fiction" film "Farenheit 451" (but this is also a common idea in that sort of film), there is a huge screen in every house, which is the primary communication mean. Perhaps better known to Us audience is "A Very Private Life" from Michael Frayn, where people see no reason to come out of their house, as they find in it satisfaction of all their needs.
With the problem Apple has had with the i in Pad with lawsuits it is time for Apple to move on.
What problems?
Quote:
That way tv would be pronounced iTV ( or iAnything) when spoken by Apple and eventually that is how the masses would come to see the symbol when added to a noun.
That makes no sense. Do you really want Apple to pretend they're Prince?
With the problem Apple has had with the i in Pad with lawsuits it is time for Apple to move on. There are other letters in this alphabet and there are symbols such as the Apple sign that could be used. Possibly could be correlated with "i" when spoken. That way tv would be pronounced iTV ( or iAnything) when spoken by Apple and eventually that is how the masses would come to see the symbol when added to a noun.
I can see a future where a valentine's card would read,
(pic of a bee hive=ing honey)
(pic of a heart)
U
Tacky, but it might work.
No, it wouldn't.
iPanel may be a more "appropriate" name, but it's as bad as the name "iHub", which was once mooted as a rename for the iTunes App.
I'm sticking to calling it the Apple Cinema TV (Along the lines of the name the Apple monitors have - Apple Cinema Display) until I hear otherwise from Apple themselves.
"iScreen" would be more logical but "iTV" is best and it's really just a wild assumption on everyone's part that they can't use it because of that horrible British TV station IMO.
IF this Peter Misek guy works for an investment company wouldn't making the statement that Apple stock will reach $800 and tack that onto a new Apple TV or Panel rumor be a little questionable. Is he trying to influence the stock price?
Of course he is. Every analyst does the same thing.
that said I think this guy is actually using his head in terms of what to believe and put your name on. Because I don't think that Apple is making a TV set. I think they are doing a revamp of their cinema display in such a way that it could be used as a tv set, or a computer display. with perhaps the Apple TV bits included for those that don't have one yet. But perhaps not.
making it a dummy display reduces patents they would need to license while opening up markets. This display is something that pros might go for since many of them have been screaming about why Apple doesn't have a display that is bigger than 27 inches. They would probably love a big retina level 40 inch display. Especially if all this anti reflective coating talk is for this display (with or without any new iMacs)
Whatever tv Apple decides to bring out, it will be overpriced, as per the usual Apple BS, and there will be MUCH BETTER products out there from competitors. But the fanboys will be sucked in by al the hype and show off how cool their new toy is to all of their friends.
Just how small of a screen are we talking about to hit that price and margin? Or does he expect Apple to use an ultra cheap (and therefore low quality) LCD?
Their 27" thunderbolt display goes for $999, so maybe somewhere between 30" and 40". I myself would want minimum 40", but preferably 50-55".
What's with the "i" attached to it at all? I believe it was Steve who once said no one wants to search the internet on their living room wall.
the i is just a naming trend. A marketing thing. it really means nothing in terms of use. After all, you can't get on the internet with your iPod nano or your iPod classic etc.
It's a display. If you wanted to search the web or read your email, great. If you wanted to hook your blu-ray, apple tv stb and cable to it, great.
Comments
Misek believes the Apple television will have a $1,250 average selling price and 30 percent gross margins.
Just how small of a screen are we talking about to hit that price and margin? Or does he expect Apple to use an ultra cheap (and therefore low quality) LCD?
Or, the "AppleTV with a Real TV Attached To It", or, ATVWARTVATI for short?
For the last time they are not making a God Damn TV.
You know I think you may be right and Steve's talk about cracking the TV was really all about the-
iRemote!
AppleTV using today's TVs from other makers still could mean some incompatibilities, vs. the REAL APPL TV, by whatever name, where It Just Works, Holistic Approach would be all taken care of!
With my 1st iPad to be bought soon, all maxed out, that's like a TV in every room, but then?
Who has time to watch all that TV?
My other concern is? if Apple TV is Streaming, then ISPs might get into Caps, like Cell Companies, ATT + Verizon? And, if the consumers are on Metered Usage at Home, rather then Unlimited, it might be a Kill Joy, where we'd constantly be looking over our shoulders about our usage!!!! That's one of the Kill Joys about iPad (3) LTE, where the Cell Providers are looking to squeeze every bit of $$$ from their Costly Data Plans!!!
How is Apple to get around all that, unless they can become a Provider? Even if they wanted to, that takes years to built such Networks! Unless they just buy Sprint and or ATT or Verizon, and grow from there? But then there is the rest of the world, plus AntiTrust issues!
Either way, I can't wait to buy this product, no matter what Apple calls it!!! I know it'll be a huge seller, and AAPL will go up much higher, so I am not laughing at $1000 Estimates! It's more of a When, not If?.
P.S. DEAR APPLE, PLEASE MAKE ALL YOUR SCREENS, INCLUDING THIS TV THING - ANTIGLARE, ANTIGLARE, ANTIGLARE!!!!! I already know what iLookLike, iDon'tNeedAnotherMirror
The more I think about it, the more I realize that we're not going to simply see an 'improved' TV-as-we've-always-known-it experience.
The entire model of how we get media has to change from the ground up.
Slapping an easier to use interface on the garbage Network/cable model is a loser from the git go.
Something like this name will be a good start.
Getting interesting.
I can see a future where a valentine's card would read,
(bee hive)
(heart)
U
Tacky, but it might work. Maybe the old colour striped could be revived for the cause.
I don't think it's a wild assumption. iTV has been very adamant and proactive in defending their name and posturing that they would never license it out, even to Apple. Knowing that Apple likes to have the same name World-Wide for their products, it's a TAME assumption....
I meant that it was a wild assumption that a TV set sold world-wide cannot be legally named the same as a TV station that exists in one particular country. This is what the court would have to decide if it ever gets that far.
Historically, you can use the same name if you are in a different business. It's arguable whether TV broadcaster and TV manufacturer are the same business. iTV would have to prove (again if it went to court), that people would be confused buying an "iTV" and thinking they bought free access to a TV station instead. Apple might be able to get around this with a simple warning label on product sold in the UK.
There is also the money factor. Apple could buy iTV (the station) tomorrow with pocket change, change the name to something else and then re-sell them in the afternoon. They would probably even lose less money in the deal than the court case would cost. iTV (despite it's bluster), would also likely accept money to change the name themselves.
My main point is just that it's far from a "done deal" or a foregone conclusion that they can't or won't call it iTV. It's debatable whether it's even a violation of any kind and even if it is, "money talks."
I mean, come on. We are talking about the largest, wealthiest company on the planet versus England's second string TV station here.
I think it's ridiculous to call the conclusion at this point.
There are thousands and thousands of TV stations around the world and most of them use some kind of letter acronym. What if when they launched the original Apple TV there was already a TV station in Afghanistan or Congo Republic called AppleTV? Would you still think it a sure thing that Apple wouldn't be allowed to use that name? Do you think anyone would be arguing that "Apple can't do that?"
I don't think so.
With the problem Apple has had with the i in Pad with lawsuits it is time for Apple to move on.
What problems?
That way tv would be pronounced iTV ( or iAnything) when spoken by Apple and eventually that is how the masses would come to see the symbol when added to a noun.
That makes no sense. Do you really want Apple to pretend they're Prince?
With the problem Apple has had with the i in Pad with lawsuits it is time for Apple to move on. There are other letters in this alphabet and there are symbols such as the Apple sign that could be used. Possibly could be correlated with "i" when spoken. That way tv would be pronounced iTV ( or iAnything) when spoken by Apple and eventually that is how the masses would come to see the symbol when added to a noun.
I can see a future where a valentine's card would read,
(pic of a bee hive=ing honey)
(pic of a heart)
U
Tacky, but it might work.
No, it wouldn't.
iPanel may be a more "appropriate" name, but it's as bad as the name "iHub", which was once mooted as a rename for the iTunes App.
I'm sticking to calling it the Apple Cinema TV (Along the lines of the name the Apple monitors have - Apple Cinema Display) until I hear otherwise from Apple themselves.
"iScreen" would be more logical but "iTV" is best and it's really just a wild assumption on everyone's part that they can't use it because of that horrible British TV station IMO.
Why do you think ITV is horrible?
It's so obvious it'll be called iBoard.
IF this Peter Misek guy works for an investment company wouldn't making the statement that Apple stock will reach $800 and tack that onto a new Apple TV or Panel rumor be a little questionable. Is he trying to influence the stock price?
Of course he is. Every analyst does the same thing.
that said I think this guy is actually using his head in terms of what to believe and put your name on. Because I don't think that Apple is making a TV set. I think they are doing a revamp of their cinema display in such a way that it could be used as a tv set, or a computer display. with perhaps the Apple TV bits included for those that don't have one yet. But perhaps not.
making it a dummy display reduces patents they would need to license while opening up markets. This display is something that pros might go for since many of them have been screaming about why Apple doesn't have a display that is bigger than 27 inches. They would probably love a big retina level 40 inch display. Especially if all this anti reflective coating talk is for this display (with or without any new iMacs)
Just how small of a screen are we talking about to hit that price and margin? Or does he expect Apple to use an ultra cheap (and therefore low quality) LCD?
Their 27" thunderbolt display goes for $999, so maybe somewhere between 30" and 40". I myself would want minimum 40", but preferably 50-55".
What's with the "i" attached to it at all? I believe it was Steve who once said no one wants to search the internet on their living room wall.
the i is just a naming trend. A marketing thing. it really means nothing in terms of use. After all, you can't get on the internet with your iPod nano or your iPod classic etc.
It's a display. If you wanted to search the web or read your email, great. If you wanted to hook your blu-ray, apple tv stb and cable to it, great.