This "analyst" has quite an imagination. He appears to have taken a few 'clues' and extrapolated freely.
The 'iRing' idea is a novelty. I wonder if it would need to be powered?
The 'mini iTV' as described is already provided for with existing iPads. The extra 'device' is redundant.
However, I can use imagination too. My recent checks of suppliers, Apple history, rumors and my own speculation lead to a clear conclusion:
I expect Apple to release a Television later this year, and at the same time a device that, size-wise, is somewhere between the iPhone and iPad Mini. It will be called the "iPad Nano" and have a roughly 6" screen. it will be the perfect size for a gaming platform/controller and 'iTV' remote, all in one. One of those might be included with the TV when you buy it.
There. Can I get paid for making that prediction too, do you suppose?
Unless Apple has some Kinect type device for remote scrolling this might well be what they use. Probably they will release the specs for the ring to different manufacturers. Or the ring could be a pointer. Of course if you have an iOS device you could use that but that makes the cost for new users the cost of the TV and an iPhone or iPad. No deal.
And Apple will probably produce a TV and a new Apple TV box with more functionality, priced higher ( as well as keeping the lower end models).
So why buy the TV?
Brand loyalty, more features, the design and a saving on buying a new TV from Samsung, and the iTV box. For people who are happy with their existing TV - buy a box.
I bet iOS on a TV will blow people away unlike Google TV.
If Apple is to have any success in this market, it has to distinguish itself from all the other existing products in the market. So saying, "no Siri, no Cameras, no gimmicks" is completely missing the point. That's exactly the kind of functions the set has to have because the Apple TV is without question going to be more expensive than most competitive sets.
The industry is moving towards 2nd screen applications. TV cameras on TVs are going to be used (privacy issues aside) to change content based upon who is in the room.
I think the 2nd screen that Apple is supposedly supplying has to be more than a remote screen. It has to support 2nd screen apps as well. And in addition, iPads should also be able to receive whatever the primary set is sending out even if that can only be accomplished in future models.
I think there's a problem with the "ring" concept: what if more than one person in the room wants to control the TV? With standard remotes, someone can just pick the remote up off the table. If one is wearing a ring, that makes it harder for someone else to use it. Also, it's easy for a ring to get lost. (If this is real, I can't wait for all the "Lord of the Rings" jokes.)
Previous rumors claimed that the Apple TV would be a 4K set. Is that no longer the case?
It fails on so many levels, not the least of which is ring size!
Apple is never going do something this stupid because they would have to make a dozen different models based on finger thickness.
Far more than a dozen. I was a jeweler. And if electronic, better be very waterproof. Also not sizeable because of the heat or pounding involved.
NTM people are very particular about what they'll put on their fingers - and if they won't be wearing it, absolutely the most losable bit of Apple gear ever other than that little Sim tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure - by converting it into the "let's find the ring" game. Which, of course, follows the "let's fight over what size ring controller to buy" game.
A nightmare for retailer's stock bins as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
One size fits all.
Not if it contains electronics. Self-sizeable rings are all pretty much junk in my jeweler's experience, except for very pricey ones.
In all, he expects Apple's television and the included accessories to be priced between $1,500 and $2,500, depending on the number of "mini iTVs" a user opts to include and the screen size of the television. He expects Apple to offer a 60-inch television, but believes options could also be available in the 50- to 55-inch range.
There is an opportunity to make billions with the TV but analysts always drift into dreamland:
"Per analyst Katy Huberty, assuming annual sales of 50 million units and an average selling price between $200 and $300, the iWatch could drive an incremental $10 to $15 billion in revenue"
Katy thinks that Apple can sell 50 million digital watches a year between $200-300. Digital watches that need to be regularly recharged.
Her iTV projection is:
"As for the rumored iTV, the annual revenue from that product could top a whopping $68 billion and $18.00 in per-share earning, assuming an average selling price of $1,300 for the TV and ten percent penetration of iTunes account holders. A U.S.-only rollout would add $17 billion in additional annual revenue to Apple’s bottom line".
There are only ~250m TVs sold worldwide per year and most are ~$500. Apple can't take 25% of the entire worldwide TV market with a premium TV. It's different with phones and tablets because they have a very small upfront cost. They even ran a survey that said $1000 was roughly the most that people would be willing to pay.
Samsung sells about 50-70 million TVs per year and they sell cheap TVs with low margins. The entire $1000+ market can't represent more than 50 million units worldwide and Apple can't take all of it. On top of that, they even note:
"9-year life cycle of the average TV set and the 20% margins the TV market leaders (LG and Samsung) get on their sets"
I can see how they can add value over a normal TV in year 1 but what can the next revision offer? The largest potential worldwide market volume I see here is 15 million units. If they manage an average price between $1,000-1,500, that means $15-23b in revenue per year worldwide. If their gross margins are 40% (which I doubt), that's $6-9b gross profit. Net profit say $4-6b.
Best case: an iTV represents $1b net profit per quarter vs the $13b they already make.
The Apple TV box sold 2 million units in the December quarter. If they make $30 net profit on each, they'd need to hit 33m units per quarter to match the profit from a TV. That would mean selling to half of people who buy a new TV but they also appeal to the hundreds of millions during their 9 year upgrade cycle.
The choice to do one or the other depends on how much they'd make on the services and if they will eventually sell more Apple TVs than they would iTVs. If they sell more Apple TV boxes than iTVs, they make more money from the services as they reach a higher volume of users. If they sell the same number of iTVs and Apple TVs, they make more money from the iTV.
It seems to be that the Apple TV is the most popular media box in the world outside of cable provider boxes so growth will likely be steady unless they add some ground-breaking services. If they did add some compelling services, they can either put them in a media box or a TV and like I say, the choice depends on if they want high volume or to get the high profit from the TV unit. They could do both but they'd be putting people off buying the TV.
"We believe Apple will offer one 'mini iTV' per 'iTV,' but package options will include up to four screens (i.e., one screen is part of the standard package and pay extra for each additional."
I'll throw up a little if this is actually Apple's plan.
Just as terrible an idea as selling 3D glasses for your 3D TV. (Remember those? You know, from 2010?)
If they did add some compelling services, they can either put them in a media box or a TV and like I say, the choice depends on if they want high volume or to get the high profit from the TV unit.
That's it. You nailed it. I doubt that Apple intends to make their TV industry profits from hardware. I don't think they really can. (At least not until 4K TVs become available to the mass market, and they can do some really interesting things with all that extra screen resolution.)
So, if not from hardware, where will Apple earn money, tons of money, from TV? I think it will be some combination of revenue sharing with content providers (like the 30% cut of app revenue on the App Store) and maybe a monthly service fee (like the $10 that DirecTV forces us to pay for their program guide) and also through iAd revenue.
I think Apple might need to eventually move toward an ad-subsidized profit model over time. Consumer-grade hardware gets cheaper and cheaper over the decades. Remember when scientific calculators were more than $100? Now they're dirt cheap and/or 99 cent apps. Remember when you paid $1000 for a 2GB hard drive with SCSI connector? (Well, OK, I'll forgive you if you're too young to remember that.) Eventually, Apple will need to evolve their business model for ultra-cheap computing devices. Sure, they'll still make a 40 percent margin, but the devices will be $20. Profits will decline unless Apple can ramp up their software and services revenue.
And, I think that Apple's TV solution, whatever it will be, should be a natural first step toward that ad-subsidized future. People are already used to watching ads on TV. Apple could replace standard audio/video ads that people passively watch with more interactive iAds. Make them more interesting, increase engagement, and I almost hate to say, disable the fast-forward or skip-2.5-minutes-ahead buttons during iAds. (Yes, there's a skip 2.5 minutes ahead button on the DirecTV iPad app's remote control feature for their DVRs.)
This all requires totally replacing the current broadcast / cable / satellite infrastructure. Content would need to be streamed over the internet (not a new thing), from Apple's servers (not a new thing), with iAds instead of no-ad or conventional-ad streaming (a new thing), to some kind of improved Apple TV "puck" at first, then optionally to some kind of 4K TV if Apple thinks it would make sense, business-wise, whenever 4K TVs start to become commonplace.
Yes, I think Apple might just skip the whole current-generation 1920x1080 HDTV era before they consider shipping an actual Apple television set. Too limiting in terms of screen real estate, too much low-end competition, and Samsung and others have already shipped gesture-controlled and voice-controlled TV sets. By the time 4K TV sets are commonplace, broadband internet to the home will necessarily be more commonplace (for all that massive video content), and the extra resolution will allow Apple to really flex their design muscles, showing various bits of info, icons, etc. along the bottom third of the screen, shrinking and expanding multiple images for PIP, etc. Not to mention the (inevitable?) Siri integration.
This capital markets analyst is a genius. This is one of the best April Fools day jokes ever. The ones that linger around after the day is over, and slowly grow take some talent to create. Even if the TV itself is plausible at this point, the ring still sounds too ridiculous. Although, I still don't believe the rumor of a TV, because this seems to come up every year.
Yes I think this is why they decided to call it the apple tv(in beta it was called ITV) but what about them using your hand or Siri, instead of a ring easy to loose, must fit right, low battery life(to small), bad signal(curl your fingers) and will proably be uncomfortable.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Is it still April fools?
Is the iRing supposed to end the battle over who has the remote?
Sure - by converting it into the "let's find the ring" game. Which, of course, follows the "let's fight over what size ring controller to buy" game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexmit
Is this for the new Pope?
no.
The 'iRing' idea is a novelty. I wonder if it would need to be powered?
The 'mini iTV' as described is already provided for with existing iPads. The extra 'device' is redundant.
However, I can use imagination too. My recent checks of suppliers, Apple history, rumors and my own speculation lead to a clear conclusion:
I expect Apple to release a Television later this year, and at the same time a device that, size-wise, is somewhere between the iPhone and iPad Mini. It will be called the "iPad Nano" and have a roughly 6" screen. it will be the perfect size for a gaming platform/controller and 'iTV' remote, all in one. One of those might be included with the TV when you buy it.
There. Can I get paid for making that prediction too, do you suppose?
deleted
One size fits all. Easiest to lose TV remote ever!
Unless Apple has some Kinect type device for remote scrolling this might well be what they use. Probably they will release the specs for the ring to different manufacturers. Or the ring could be a pointer. Of course if you have an iOS device you could use that but that makes the cost for new users the cost of the TV and an iPhone or iPad. No deal.
And Apple will probably produce a TV and a new Apple TV box with more functionality, priced higher ( as well as keeping the lower end models).
So why buy the TV?
Brand loyalty, more features, the design and a saving on buying a new TV from Samsung, and the iTV box. For people who are happy with their existing TV - buy a box.
I bet iOS on a TV will blow people away unlike Google TV.
What a stupid rumor of a stupid idea.
The industry is moving towards 2nd screen applications. TV cameras on TVs are going to be used (privacy issues aside) to change content based upon who is in the room.
I think the 2nd screen that Apple is supposedly supplying has to be more than a remote screen. It has to support 2nd screen apps as well. And in addition, iPads should also be able to receive whatever the primary set is sending out even if that can only be accomplished in future models.
I think there's a problem with the "ring" concept: what if more than one person in the room wants to control the TV? With standard remotes, someone can just pick the remote up off the table. If one is wearing a ring, that makes it harder for someone else to use it. Also, it's easy for a ring to get lost. (If this is real, I can't wait for all the "Lord of the Rings" jokes.)
Previous rumors claimed that the Apple TV would be a 4K set. Is that no longer the case?
Uh-uhhh. Off on many counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
It fails on so many levels, not the least of which is ring size!
Apple is never going do something this stupid because they would have to make a dozen different models based on finger thickness.
Far more than a dozen. I was a jeweler. And if electronic, better be very waterproof. Also not sizeable because of the heat or pounding involved.
NTM people are very particular about what they'll put on their fingers - and if they won't be wearing it, absolutely the most losable bit of Apple gear ever other than that little Sim tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure - by converting it into the "let's find the ring" game. Which, of course, follows the "let's fight over what size ring controller to buy" game.
A nightmare for retailer's stock bins as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
One size fits all.
Not if it contains electronics. Self-sizeable rings are all pretty much junk in my jeweler's experience, except for very pricey ones.
There is an opportunity to make billions with the TV but analysts always drift into dreamland:
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/02/12/iwatch-itv-an-80-billion-opportunity/
"Per analyst Katy Huberty, assuming annual sales of 50 million units and an average selling price between $200 and $300, the iWatch could drive an incremental $10 to $15 billion in revenue"
Katy thinks that Apple can sell 50 million digital watches a year between $200-300. Digital watches that need to be regularly recharged.
Her iTV projection is:
"As for the rumored iTV, the annual revenue from that product could top a whopping $68 billion and $18.00 in per-share earning, assuming an average selling price of $1,300 for the TV and ten percent penetration of iTunes account holders. A U.S.-only rollout would add $17 billion in additional annual revenue to Apple’s bottom line".
There are only ~250m TVs sold worldwide per year and most are ~$500. Apple can't take 25% of the entire worldwide TV market with a premium TV. It's different with phones and tablets because they have a very small upfront cost. They even ran a survey that said $1000 was roughly the most that people would be willing to pay.
Samsung sells about 50-70 million TVs per year and they sell cheap TVs with low margins. The entire $1000+ market can't represent more than 50 million units worldwide and Apple can't take all of it. On top of that, they even note:
"9-year life cycle of the average TV set and the 20% margins the TV market leaders (LG and Samsung) get on their sets"
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/apple-itv-morgan-stanley-huberty/
I can see how they can add value over a normal TV in year 1 but what can the next revision offer? The largest potential worldwide market volume I see here is 15 million units. If they manage an average price between $1,000-1,500, that means $15-23b in revenue per year worldwide. If their gross margins are 40% (which I doubt), that's $6-9b gross profit. Net profit say $4-6b.
Best case: an iTV represents $1b net profit per quarter vs the $13b they already make.
The Apple TV box sold 2 million units in the December quarter. If they make $30 net profit on each, they'd need to hit 33m units per quarter to match the profit from a TV. That would mean selling to half of people who buy a new TV but they also appeal to the hundreds of millions during their 9 year upgrade cycle.
The choice to do one or the other depends on how much they'd make on the services and if they will eventually sell more Apple TVs than they would iTVs. If they sell more Apple TV boxes than iTVs, they make more money from the services as they reach a higher volume of users. If they sell the same number of iTVs and Apple TVs, they make more money from the iTV.
It seems to be that the Apple TV is the most popular media box in the world outside of cable provider boxes so growth will likely be steady unless they add some ground-breaking services. If they did add some compelling services, they can either put them in a media box or a TV and like I say, the choice depends on if they want high volume or to get the high profit from the TV unit. They could do both but they'd be putting people off buying the TV.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"We believe Apple will offer one 'mini iTV' per 'iTV,' but package options will include up to four screens (i.e., one screen is part of the standard package and pay extra for each additional."
I'll throw up a little if this is actually Apple's plan.
Just as terrible an idea as selling 3D glasses for your 3D TV. (Remember those? You know, from 2010?)
Made my day :-)
Originally Posted by Marvin
If they did add some compelling services, they can either put them in a media box or a TV and like I say, the choice depends on if they want high volume or to get the high profit from the TV unit.
That's it. You nailed it. I doubt that Apple intends to make their TV industry profits from hardware. I don't think they really can. (At least not until 4K TVs become available to the mass market, and they can do some really interesting things with all that extra screen resolution.)
So, if not from hardware, where will Apple earn money, tons of money, from TV? I think it will be some combination of revenue sharing with content providers (like the 30% cut of app revenue on the App Store) and maybe a monthly service fee (like the $10 that DirecTV forces us to pay for their program guide) and also through iAd revenue.
I think Apple might need to eventually move toward an ad-subsidized profit model over time. Consumer-grade hardware gets cheaper and cheaper over the decades. Remember when scientific calculators were more than $100? Now they're dirt cheap and/or 99 cent apps. Remember when you paid $1000 for a 2GB hard drive with SCSI connector? (Well, OK, I'll forgive you if you're too young to remember that.) Eventually, Apple will need to evolve their business model for ultra-cheap computing devices. Sure, they'll still make a 40 percent margin, but the devices will be $20. Profits will decline unless Apple can ramp up their software and services revenue.
And, I think that Apple's TV solution, whatever it will be, should be a natural first step toward that ad-subsidized future. People are already used to watching ads on TV. Apple could replace standard audio/video ads that people passively watch with more interactive iAds. Make them more interesting, increase engagement, and I almost hate to say, disable the fast-forward or skip-2.5-minutes-ahead buttons during iAds. (Yes, there's a skip 2.5 minutes ahead button on the DirecTV iPad app's remote control feature for their DVRs.)
This all requires totally replacing the current broadcast / cable / satellite infrastructure. Content would need to be streamed over the internet (not a new thing), from Apple's servers (not a new thing), with iAds instead of no-ad or conventional-ad streaming (a new thing), to some kind of improved Apple TV "puck" at first, then optionally to some kind of 4K TV if Apple thinks it would make sense, business-wise, whenever 4K TVs start to become commonplace.
Yes, I think Apple might just skip the whole current-generation 1920x1080 HDTV era before they consider shipping an actual Apple television set. Too limiting in terms of screen real estate, too much low-end competition, and Samsung and others have already shipped gesture-controlled and voice-controlled TV sets. By the time 4K TV sets are commonplace, broadband internet to the home will necessarily be more commonplace (for all that massive video content), and the extra resolution will allow Apple to really flex their design muscles, showing various bits of info, icons, etc. along the bottom third of the screen, shrinking and expanding multiple images for PIP, etc. Not to mention the (inevitable?) Siri integration.
Great idea! But will the ring be powerless over any app that is colored yellow?