Apple iOS products have about a 3-5 year life cycle, then they're no longer upgradable, and shortly thereafter not terribly useable.
Mmm… no… They're just fine.
Televisions have a 10-20 year life cycle.
Also, no. TWENTY years?! You would've replaced this sucker only six years ago?
You're right that televisions have much longer update cycles than all other modern consumer electronics, but you're still off by about 2-3x.
3-5 year old iDevices are not fine. I tried getting someones' email to work on a 3G iPhone. That's right, 4 year old smartphone. A basic thing, like email, didn't work because it was a .Mac account. Sorry, no iCloud for you on 4.3.2 or whatever iOS version it could run. Email worked fine before Apple started to change their config; not that the phone was incapable of doing a simple thing as email. Other email accounts work just fine.
--
I have a few friends who haven't bought a new TV because their 23 year old sets still work. And I must admit, the picture quality is vastly superior to the new flat screens. And I don't think it's because that they are B&O sets; I think it's because CRT is vastly superior to flatpanels.
I tried getting someones' email to work on a 3G iPhone. That's right, 4 year old smartphone. A basic thing, like email, didn't work because it was a .Mac account. Sorry, no iCloud for you on 4.3.2 or whatever iOS version it could run.
You do realize that the components inside between an Apple product and their competitors are virtually the same right? As far as I can tell, they're all being supplied by the same sources. So I'm not really sure how you can really decern what's "quality" and what "inferior".
They are indeed 'off the shelve' components, but not always the one competitors choose. There was a nice discussion on the topic of RAM over here
Guys, did anyone of you really pick up the 'cloud-based DVR' line? If Steve cracked it like I have in mind, then we can see another industry revolution/disruption coming up. It's not about the television. Well, for the hack of it, they finally placed iSight right behind the center of the screen.
Sure it will look nice. But margins are low. Unless you can offer incredible UX. E.g. Recording multiple programs running at the same time on multiple channels. Viewing your own selection of programs running this week (somewhere there will be a max unless premium, then unlimited) in your preferred order. Instant 'view all previous broadcasts of series'. 'Buy premium view for the movie your watching' (without the ads). Tell sell, order here, Siri voice confirmation (ehh, ehh), pay with ... (Fill in any creditcard company or iTunes). Siri tweets with automated program hashtags and Teleconferenceview shows with friends. Video lounge. Watching Korean soaps or Bollywoods with machine translated subtitles. And let's not forget... Your choice of thousands of channels worldwide with many rising amateur channels and concerts, sports or other live events. Obviously anyidevice and instantly start on another where you left off.
The price? Way below 1000. But it comes with subscription fees just like your cable provider. So you only need internet...
Although inevitable, no wonder that it takes a while for broadcast channels to step in... They must be petrified.
They aren't going to be the one's paying for it (still living off Mom & Dad)
They are very well off, considering the latter half of that age bracket would only be 3-5 years out of college.
They don't have any concept of a household budget yet and will just "charge it".
So I don't even look at those number because they are unrealistic. Look at the next age bracket and how much less the interest in paying a "premium" is. That is much more realistic in my mind.
If you're out of college and don't have kids, you likely have some amount of discretionary income. I think a realistic figure would need to account for more than the 20% premium used in the headline. Most television manufacturers leverage their own facilities and designs. Even then the margins aren't that high in most of them. It's likely that you'd have a much higher cost if Apple is trying to derive their typical margins from the unit, but the analysts are all over this because Apple's only hardware product here is a $99 box. They effectively have 0% of the television market, so with the right margins it presents the potential for growth in an area that is unlikely to cannibalize existing sales. It is consistent with Apple's focus on media consumption, so I don't see analysts or AI dropping it as a perpetual headline.
No, you're probably right. They're slow, sure, and they won't be compatible with everything, but they're not entirely useless, is all.
No no no! All I, or she, actually, wanted was her .Mac email to work. I definitely screwed up here, seeing these screendumps and not being able to configure it correctly myself. I tried all the tricks the internet showed me. P01 p02 p03 server et cetera. I didn't do a full restore / zap everything kind of thing, but I did really try to make it work. iFail!
I'm not trying to be contrary, but couldn't all that be done with the current $100 Apple TV device? Why do we need a special $1,000+ HDTV to do any of that?
It could all be done with the present or a future $100.- atv box just as everything iMac can be done with a much less expensive Apple Mini. But this is where the 'great debate' lies. One of the themes of the 'great debate' is the facetime or no face time question. Personally I believe if Apple brings out a big screen version of atv it will definitely feature FT. Another aspect is the sheer loveliness of a 50" Apple Television set.
I'm surprised at how many people spend a small fortune on a large TV. A good show is still a good show on a 32" screen and a bad one is still a bad one on an 80" screen. Bigger better picture quality won't improve the writing or change the fact that it was shot to look acceptable in 23". If anything a larger screen only amplifies what's wrong with most television programming.
Big sound is even less relevant so, unlike the majority it seems, I actually think a TV should have decent sound reproduction. 99% of the time it's a complete and total waste of electricity to pipe television programming through a separate surround sound receiver and speakers. If you watch a lot of movies then your percentage will differ from mine, but there are a lot of movies for which big sound is irrelevant too.
I do not want on demand programming. You can now lift your jaws off the floor.
A few years back I had a favourite show that my wife and I watched religiously. Then one season they changed the time slot and we could no longer watch. I could have bought a PVR or bought the episodes on iTunes, but couldn't justify spending the money. It was just television after all. A friend of mine bought the show so I now have access to all the episodes. I haven't watched a single one. There's simply no urgency to do it so it never makes it to the top of the list.
That urgency, the fact that I've only got one chance to see a broadcast episode in the correct sequence, is the only thing that pulls me away from life and gets me to devote an hour to sitting in front of the TV. In an on-demand TV universe I wouldn't watch anything.
Only problem is that you will need to buy new TV from Apple every two years because something (update? fix? account stop working?) will require new iOS
Thank you I will still stick to Sony or something similar level of electronics.
I prefer that "tuner" functionality outside. What's standard can sit inside.
Don't we pay way too much for TV services anyway? Now if Apple gave us technology for ala carte, that would be cool. However, just give me a box I can use with my other TV's.
I guess I am in the majority as I WON"T pay a premium for an Apple tv. I have a Mac Book Pro and a Mini, so why do I need an new tv? Just because it has the Apple logo? NO. I watch tv for tv's sake and none other. My 62" Samsung is getting a little long in the tooth, but I still gets wonderful 1080P images out of it, so why bother.
I guess I am in the majority as I WON'T pay a premium for an Apple phone. I have a Mac Book Pro and a Mini, so why do I need an new phone? Just because it has the Apple logo? NO. I use a phone for phone calls and none other. My Samsung is getting a little long in the tooth, but I still get wonderful phone calls out of it, so why bother.
I'm surprised at how many people spend a small fortune on a large TV. A good show is still a good show on a 32" screen and a bad one is still a bad one on an 80" screen. Bigger better picture quality won't improve the writing or change the fact that it was shot to look acceptable in 23". If anything a larger screen only amplifies what's wrong with most television programming.
False. The HDTV spec is designed for 1080p to be viewed at 1.6 times the diagonal size. So unless you are used to sitting 51" from your 32" screen you're sitting too far away to meet the SMPTE 30 spec (i.e. the picture quality it was shot for). Less important for soap operas, more important for movies.
For THX the recommended seating range for a 35" HDTV is 3.5' to 5.0' although at 5' you're pushing it (within the SMPTE 30 spec).
For a 60" HDTV (given that few are ponying $25K for the 80") the seating distance is between 6' and 9'...or more like what most US folks have in their living/family room.
Comments
3-5 year old iDevices are not fine. I tried getting someones' email to work on a 3G iPhone. That's right, 4 year old smartphone. A basic thing, like email, didn't work because it was a .Mac account. Sorry, no iCloud for you on 4.3.2 or whatever iOS version it could run. Email worked fine before Apple started to change their config; not that the phone was incapable of doing a simple thing as email. Other email accounts work just fine.
--
I have a few friends who haven't bought a new TV because their 23 year old sets still work. And I must admit, the picture quality is vastly superior to the new flat screens. And I don't think it's because that they are B&O sets; I think it's because CRT is vastly superior to flatpanels.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
3-5 year old iDevices are not fine.
This is just wrong. Slower, fewer apps, but fine.
I tried getting someones' email to work on a 3G iPhone. That's right, 4 year old smartphone. A basic thing, like email, didn't work because it was a .Mac account. Sorry, no iCloud for you on 4.3.2 or whatever iOS version it could run.
iPhone OS 3.1.3. First-gen iPhone.
Wow! Well, color me blind, there's a solution after all! Darn it, I just told her to get a new iPhone. Would a 'oops' be fitting here?
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Wow! Well, color me blind, there's a solution after all! Darn it, I just told her to get a new iPhone. Would a 'oops' be fitting here?
No, you're probably right. They're slow, sure, and they won't be compatible with everything, but they're not entirely useless, is all.
They are indeed 'off the shelve' components, but not always the one competitors choose. There was a nice discussion on the topic of RAM over here
Sure it will look nice. But margins are low. Unless you can offer incredible UX. E.g. Recording multiple programs running at the same time on multiple channels. Viewing your own selection of programs running this week (somewhere there will be a max unless premium, then unlimited) in your preferred order. Instant 'view all previous broadcasts of series'. 'Buy premium view for the movie your watching' (without the ads). Tell sell, order here, Siri voice confirmation (ehh, ehh), pay with ... (Fill in any creditcard company or iTunes). Siri tweets with automated program hashtags and Teleconferenceview shows with friends. Video lounge. Watching Korean soaps or Bollywoods with machine translated subtitles. And let's not forget... Your choice of thousands of channels worldwide with many rising amateur channels and concerts, sports or other live events. Obviously anyidevice and instantly start on another where you left off.
The price? Way below 1000. But it comes with subscription fees just like your cable provider. So you only need internet...
Although inevitable, no wonder that it takes a while for broadcast channels to step in... They must be petrified.
Meanwhile I am going to read paperbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
They aren't going to be the one's paying for it (still living off Mom & Dad)
They are very well off, considering the latter half of that age bracket would only be 3-5 years out of college.
They don't have any concept of a household budget yet and will just "charge it".
So I don't even look at those number because they are unrealistic. Look at the next age bracket and how much less the interest in paying a "premium" is. That is much more realistic in my mind.
If you're out of college and don't have kids, you likely have some amount of discretionary income. I think a realistic figure would need to account for more than the 20% premium used in the headline. Most television manufacturers leverage their own facilities and designs. Even then the margins aren't that high in most of them. It's likely that you'd have a much higher cost if Apple is trying to derive their typical margins from the unit, but the analysts are all over this because Apple's only hardware product here is a $99 box. They effectively have 0% of the television market, so with the right margins it presents the potential for growth in an area that is unlikely to cannibalize existing sales. It is consistent with Apple's focus on media consumption, so I don't see analysts or AI dropping it as a perpetual headline.
No no no! All I, or she, actually, wanted was her .Mac email to work. I definitely screwed up here, seeing these screendumps and not being able to configure it correctly myself. I tried all the tricks the internet showed me. P01 p02 p03 server et cetera. I didn't do a full restore / zap everything kind of thing, but I did really try to make it work. iFail!
Can't wait. Still have a Sony Trinitron. Samesung ? Over my dead body !
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98
I'm not trying to be contrary, but couldn't all that be done with the current $100 Apple TV device? Why do we need a special $1,000+ HDTV to do any of that?
It could all be done with the present or a future $100.- atv box just as everything iMac can be done with a much less expensive Apple Mini. But this is where the 'great debate' lies. One of the themes of the 'great debate' is the facetime or no face time question. Personally I believe if Apple brings out a big screen version of atv it will definitely feature FT. Another aspect is the sheer loveliness of a 50" Apple Television set.
47%? Maybe those poor victims thought it would be a government handout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
They are indeed 'off the shelve' components, but not always the one competitors choose. There was a nice discussion on the topic of RAM over here
Right, and some of us said "Oh whatever, bullshit." over there, too!
I'm surprised at how many people spend a small fortune on a large TV. A good show is still a good show on a 32" screen and a bad one is still a bad one on an 80" screen. Bigger better picture quality won't improve the writing or change the fact that it was shot to look acceptable in 23". If anything a larger screen only amplifies what's wrong with most television programming.
Big sound is even less relevant so, unlike the majority it seems, I actually think a TV should have decent sound reproduction. 99% of the time it's a complete and total waste of electricity to pipe television programming through a separate surround sound receiver and speakers. If you watch a lot of movies then your percentage will differ from mine, but there are a lot of movies for which big sound is irrelevant too.
I do not want on demand programming. You can now lift your jaws off the floor.
A few years back I had a favourite show that my wife and I watched religiously. Then one season they changed the time slot and we could no longer watch. I could have bought a PVR or bought the episodes on iTunes, but couldn't justify spending the money. It was just television after all. A friend of mine bought the show so I now have access to all the episodes. I haven't watched a single one. There's simply no urgency to do it so it never makes it to the top of the list.
That urgency, the fact that I've only got one chance to see a broadcast episode in the correct sequence, is the only thing that pulls me away from life and gets me to devote an hour to sitting in front of the TV. In an on-demand TV universe I wouldn't watch anything.
Only problem is that you will need to buy new TV from Apple every two years because something (update? fix? account stop working?) will require new iOS
Thank you I will still stick to Sony or something similar level of electronics.
I prefer that "tuner" functionality outside. What's standard can sit inside.
Don't we pay way too much for TV services anyway? Now if Apple gave us technology for ala carte, that would be cool. However, just give me a box I can use with my other TV's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massconn72
I guess I am in the majority as I WON"T pay a premium for an Apple tv. I have a Mac Book Pro and a Mini, so why do I need an new tv? Just because it has the Apple logo? NO. I watch tv for tv's sake and none other. My 62" Samsung is getting a little long in the tooth, but I still gets wonderful 1080P images out of it, so why bother.
I guess I am in the majority as I WON'T pay a premium for an Apple phone. I have a Mac Book Pro and a Mini, so why do I need an new phone? Just because it has the Apple logo? NO. I use a phone for phone calls and none other. My Samsung is getting a little long in the tooth, but I still get wonderful phone calls out of it, so why bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
I'm surprised at how many people spend a small fortune on a large TV. A good show is still a good show on a 32" screen and a bad one is still a bad one on an 80" screen. Bigger better picture quality won't improve the writing or change the fact that it was shot to look acceptable in 23". If anything a larger screen only amplifies what's wrong with most television programming.
False. The HDTV spec is designed for 1080p to be viewed at 1.6 times the diagonal size. So unless you are used to sitting 51" from your 32" screen you're sitting too far away to meet the SMPTE 30 spec (i.e. the picture quality it was shot for). Less important for soap operas, more important for movies.
For THX the recommended seating range for a 35" HDTV is 3.5' to 5.0' although at 5' you're pushing it (within the SMPTE 30 spec).
For a 60" HDTV (given that few are ponying $25K for the 80") the seating distance is between 6' and 9'...or more like what most US folks have in their living/family room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm working on an idea for how this could come together well and truly be revolutionary.
I think Apple might have beaten you to it.