I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
Doesn't the Mac Pro kinda act like this? Its not incredibly un-Applelike. Also, who said it would need a million cables??? 2-3 cables is too many?
?The only cables I think you'd need is power, HDMI, and maybe network if you don't do wireless networking. Why would you need anything else?
Apple is best positioned to reshape the mishmash of channels into a cohesive structure where viewers can select shows by genre as opposed to channel or time. But before Apple can release "Steve-o-vision" it must partner with a "Comcast-like" entity who already has the networks sewn up. Apple doesn't need to reinvent the wheel but it does need access to a full spectrum of networks and shows
I agree, the future is an all IP network, and both cellular and cable are moving towards this end. One still wonders when or how that will happen for terrestrial broadcast OTA via antenna though??!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
Except try watching 2160P (4K) content up close at your local HDTV store -- it is truly mesmerizing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx
I am a geek. I tend to replace my gadgets often. Yet my TVs are from 2007 and 2009. Why? Once you have a quality full HD display with HDMI in there's little reason to replace it until it dies or you want a bigger one. And I got the size I needed back then and haven't felt a need to upgrade.
TVs are a low margin business. They aren't replaced often enough to be a profitable product line. My main tv is from 2006 and it's still working fine for my needs.
TV's last and these days they are so good the upgrades are hardly worth it. Super high definition is niche, as is 3d. Half the people out there seem to be watching low res programming on high def screens, with distorted stretched images. The cheapest upgrade people can do is spend the time setting up their TV's properly and bothering to select the HD stream when available. When it comes to TV image quality people have low standards... is my experience.
Apple is best positioned to reshape the mishmash of channels into a cohesive structure where viewers can select shows by genre as opposed to channel or time. But before Apple can release "Steve-o-vision" it must partner with a "Comcast-like" entity who already has the networks sewn up. Apple doesn't need to reinvent the wheel but it does need access to a full spectrum of networks and shows
And deliver it how? Across a competitor's network? They're not just going to let someone eat their lunch.
Apple doesn't care about market share whatsoever. Profit is the most important thing.
For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
This is exactly why I think they'd be better off doing a simple box with something like an A6 or A7 in it with amazing software running it. Can the A7 's graphics push out 4K without choking???
If the A7 can't, the A8 and further iterations will be in the works and ready in a box by the time 4K displays gain significant traction in the marketplace. The other issue is streaming bandwidth from the ISPs, especially in the U.S. which lags many other countries.
For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
Exactly. The day Apple simply goes for profits (when the bean counters come in) is the day you should sell off all of your Apple stock. Profits come with Apple selling to the high-end market using quality parts and amazing software that people want. If you make something thats very profitable, but people don't want it because its a POS then its really not all that profitable. Just go ask Dell this...
I can't pretend to predict the future, but I can envision one where "cable TV" will be a quaint, historical memory, where all "channels" instead flow through the Internet connection. Today, the cable installer brings a Motorola or Cisco "set top box" into your home. Imagine if that instead were an Apple TV box, and your channels came through that. Call it HomePlay (just as Apple can drive your future vehicle's dash display via CarPlay). Evolution tends to happen in sudden spurts rather than steadily. I can imagine "cable TV" going away in a seismic shift to Internet-based programming. All those immense Apple data centers distributed across the country are gaining equally immense netcast capability, which represents potentially very attractive value-provided facilities for all the content providers. A scenario can be envisioned where both cable- and content-providers win with this arrangement as a new frontier is opened up. Keep in mind that cable companies absolutely hate having to deal with content providers, who continually drive prices up and make cable companies appear to be the perennial bad guys. The overall situation is just so ripe for this change.
Who knows what Apple's plans are, but one reason for them doing a TV is law of large numbers. Last fiscal year Apple's revenues were $170 billion. A $99 or $199 set top box isn't really going to move the needle on that number. If Apple thinks they could sell enough TVs to really impact that number they might consider it.
I think Apple cares more about market share in the living room than they do profits. The profits will still come from iOS devices, and for as long as the AppleTV is the best box to have in the living room in house full of iOS devices, they will continue to win market share.
Apple moving to an integrated TV display would be a disaster.......repeat.....disaster. There is no one to compete against. They would still be competing against $50 Roku devices that have similar functionality at the end of the day. The main point is....anyone that is not in NEED of a new TV has no reason to go out and buy an Apple HDTV. Aside from the fact that Apple would (could) make the best TV ever made...thats just an assumption based on their contributions to other markets. Everything else would be software, and Apple can already deliver that with a box connected via HDMI.
If you need further proof of that last statement....compare the iMac to a Mac mini w/ a random display from Dell or Acer....and tell me that Apple has done SO MUCH more with the iMac that it makes the other experience not worth it......because in my personal experience that is not the case at all. The iMac is nice, but no reason why I can't have the same great experience with Mac mini & Dell display.
Apple needs to just make a fantastic looking 4K monitor which people can use both in their living room as a TV or with their MacPros, etc.. Keep Apple TV as an inexpensive, upgradable set top box. Either way, the MacPro needs a great monitor to go with it, they can't just have that Sharp 4K monitor being the one.
What a horrible intro to this article. "...adding color to recent indications of a shift in Apple's living room go-to-market strategy from an integrated television set to a standalone set-top box."
Really? Where is there any evidence of actual shift in Apple's strategy. Point to any hint from Apple that they ever intended to produce an actual TV set. The only thing that's shifted is the guesswork about what Apple should be or is doing.
For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
Respectfully, comments about selling more Macs while PCs sales drop off, are not necessarily evidence that Apple cares about market share. It's just a statement about relative success in selling products people like. Obviously market share is going to be correlated to sales numbers and more sales is better then fewer sales, but that doesn't mean that market share is a goal. For example, I doubt Apple cares about their share of the "phone market" or even the "more-than-feature phone market" if the latter includes crappy smart phones that are basically free.
I don't think you disagree. I just wouldn't read too much (anything) into the fact that Cook refers to sales of other products.
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
4k does look great, but the only form of IP content delivery outside of what Apple might have planned is Netflix and possibly Amazon. I think an actual physical TV from Apple would be great but the economics of it might not be there. If it's a 4k TV Apple would need to have the content lined up and they would likely get the panels from LG or Sony. The software would probably be iOS. With that being said, I don't know how much of a premium an Apple TV would carry to make sense with extended upgrade cycles. People will get the best panel money can buy and having a $99-$199 box with a better platform would probably make more sense than doing a full blown set. I think the current hardware has been doing well because of the price point and simplicity. More and more offices and schools have Apple TVs, which I think has contributed to the most recent success.
The only way I think Apple would maybe do it if they actual do a set, is maybe like the Mac Pro. Limited quantity, Assembled in the US, panels from LG or Sony, with a premium price point and have it be a halo product with a separate box for those that don't want to pay the premium.
Exactly. I have three - two gen 2s and a gen 3. The gen 2s are fine for smaller flat panels in the kitchen and guest bedroom. At $99 a pop, they're chump change. It's a no-brainer to upgrade if the next generation adds significant new capabilities at the same attractive price.
Just like an iPhone which you can get for $0-$200, it is the monthly service that gets expensive. Cox charges $47.99 / mo. for their slowest Internet (5 mbs) which is not even guaranteed and at times is too slow to properly stream content without stalling, which really is a buzz kill when watching an exciting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet prices start going up as more people bail on the TV packages in lieu of streaming.
Plus, there is also the likelihood of data caps or throttling in the future. Cutting the cord is a myth.
At one of my houses I have no cable whatsoever, just OTA HD (excellent image quality BTW, way better than cable) and for Internet I have a cell data plan with a WiFi hotspot, which is ok for a vacation home but rather limited in options.
That doesn't make sense. Rumors start that Apple is making a real TV. That would potentially slow sales as folks that want an Apple TV Set wouldn't buy a TV until that is out.
So now that the rumors have stopped, seemingly telling us that there is no real TV Set, wouldn't folks go ahead and buy that new one
Comments
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
Doesn't the Mac Pro kinda act like this? Its not incredibly un-Applelike. Also, who said it would need a million cables??? 2-3 cables is too many?
?The only cables I think you'd need is power, HDMI, and maybe network if you don't do wireless networking. Why would you need anything else?
I agree, the future is an all IP network, and both cellular and cable are moving towards this end. One still wonders when or how that will happen for terrestrial broadcast OTA via antenna though??!!
Quote:
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
Except try watching 2160P (4K) content up close at your local HDTV store -- it is truly mesmerizing!
Quote:
I am a geek. I tend to replace my gadgets often. Yet my TVs are from 2007 and 2009. Why? Once you have a quality full HD display with HDMI in there's little reason to replace it until it dies or you want a bigger one. And I got the size I needed back then and haven't felt a need to upgrade.
TVs are a low margin business. They aren't replaced often enough to be a profitable product line. My main tv is from 2006 and it's still working fine for my needs.
TV's last and these days they are so good the upgrades are hardly worth it. Super high definition is niche, as is 3d. Half the people out there seem to be watching low res programming on high def screens, with distorted stretched images. The cheapest upgrade people can do is spend the time setting up their TV's properly and bothering to select the HD stream when available. When it comes to TV image quality people have low standards... is my experience.
Faulty logic postulated on imperfect data collection.
And deliver it how? Across a competitor's network? They're not just going to let someone eat their lunch.
... rumors of full-fledged Apple television set have all but vanished
Surprise! (Not.)
For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
Exactly. The day Apple simply goes for profits (when the bean counters come in) is the day you should sell off all of your Apple stock. Profits come with Apple selling to the high-end market using quality parts and amazing software that people want. If you make something thats very profitable, but people don't want it because its a POS then its really not all that profitable. Just go ask Dell this...
Evolution tends to happen in sudden spurts rather than steadily. I can imagine "cable TV" going away in a seismic shift to Internet-based programming. All those immense Apple data centers distributed across the country are gaining equally immense netcast capability, which represents potentially very attractive value-provided facilities for all the content providers. A scenario can be envisioned where both cable- and content-providers win with this arrangement as a new frontier is opened up. Keep in mind that cable companies absolutely hate having to deal with content providers, who continually drive prices up and make cable companies appear to be the perennial bad guys. The overall situation is just so ripe for this change.
Who knows what Apple's plans are, but one reason for them doing a TV is law of large numbers. Last fiscal year Apple's revenues were $170 billion. A $99 or $199 set top box isn't really going to move the needle on that number. If Apple thinks they could sell enough TVs to really impact that number they might consider it.
I think Apple cares more about market share in the living room than they do profits. The profits will still come from iOS devices, and for as long as the AppleTV is the best box to have in the living room in house full of iOS devices, they will continue to win market share.
Apple moving to an integrated TV display would be a disaster.......repeat.....disaster. There is no one to compete against. They would still be competing against $50 Roku devices that have similar functionality at the end of the day. The main point is....anyone that is not in NEED of a new TV has no reason to go out and buy an Apple HDTV. Aside from the fact that Apple would (could) make the best TV ever made...thats just an assumption based on their contributions to other markets. Everything else would be software, and Apple can already deliver that with a box connected via HDMI.
If you need further proof of that last statement....compare the iMac to a Mac mini w/ a random display from Dell or Acer....and tell me that Apple has done SO MUCH more with the iMac that it makes the other experience not worth it......because in my personal experience that is not the case at all. The iMac is nice, but no reason why I can't have the same great experience with Mac mini & Dell display.
What a horrible intro to this article. "...adding color to recent indications of a shift in Apple's living room go-to-market strategy from an integrated television set to a standalone set-top box."
Really? Where is there any evidence of actual shift in Apple's strategy. Point to any hint from Apple that they ever intended to produce an actual TV set. The only thing that's shifted is the guesswork about what Apple should be or is doing.
For Apple, making great products and providing great user experiences are the key. Profits come with it. But market share is not meaningless. Take for example Cook's repeated comments about how Macs continue to grow while PCs tail off.
Respectfully, comments about selling more Macs while PCs sales drop off, are not necessarily evidence that Apple cares about market share. It's just a statement about relative success in selling products people like. Obviously market share is going to be correlated to sales numbers and more sales is better then fewer sales, but that doesn't mean that market share is a goal. For example, I doubt Apple cares about their share of the "phone market" or even the "more-than-feature phone market" if the latter includes crappy smart phones that are basically free.
I don't think you disagree. I just wouldn't read too much (anything) into the fact that Cook refers to sales of other products.
I can't believe that Apple would release any sort of a "set top box" that needs to be hooked up with a million cables running everywhere. It is very un-Applelike.
HDMI between the box and the TV.
Ethernet or WiFi between the network and the box.
Why would it be anything else?
4k does look great, but the only form of IP content delivery outside of what Apple might have planned is Netflix and possibly Amazon. I think an actual physical TV from Apple would be great but the economics of it might not be there. If it's a 4k TV Apple would need to have the content lined up and they would likely get the panels from LG or Sony. The software would probably be iOS. With that being said, I don't know how much of a premium an Apple TV would carry to make sense with extended upgrade cycles. People will get the best panel money can buy and having a $99-$199 box with a better platform would probably make more sense than doing a full blown set. I think the current hardware has been doing well because of the price point and simplicity. More and more offices and schools have Apple TVs, which I think has contributed to the most recent success.
The only way I think Apple would maybe do it if they actual do a set, is maybe like the Mac Pro. Limited quantity, Assembled in the US, panels from LG or Sony, with a premium price point and have it be a halo product with a separate box for those that don't want to pay the premium.
Just like an iPhone which you can get for $0-$200, it is the monthly service that gets expensive. Cox charges $47.99 / mo. for their slowest Internet (5 mbs) which is not even guaranteed and at times is too slow to properly stream content without stalling, which really is a buzz kill when watching an exciting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet prices start going up as more people bail on the TV packages in lieu of streaming.
Plus, there is also the likelihood of data caps or throttling in the future. Cutting the cord is a myth.
At one of my houses I have no cable whatsoever, just OTA HD (excellent image quality BTW, way better than cable) and for Internet I have a cell data plan with a WiFi hotspot, which is ok for a vacation home but rather limited in options.
So now that the rumors have stopped, seemingly telling us that there is no real TV Set, wouldn't folks go ahead and buy that new one