As rumors of Apple television fade, so does the number of people bashing Samsung TVs. If we look at Appleinsider, MacRumors, and other discussion posts from last year during the height of the Apple TV rumors, will we find that many of the people who were trashing Samsung TVs and praising Apple for making a TV, are the same people who are now saying Apple is so wise for not making a TV?
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.
Where are you getting $499 from? And what size would the screen be?
That's my guess at the subsidised price. But like I say, it won't happen because the content owners won't play ball so Apple cannot do the contract they want to.
What about smart phones? If you said the dumb phone bandwagon, it'll fit in with netbooks and smart TVs.
TVs aren't replace often. Cell phones are generally replaced when the contract is up. Computers are replaced when they get obsolete due to software or they fail or warranty expires. TVs get replaced when they fail.
Why would Apple subsidize the tv price? And Apple's "great experience" can rely on a set top box.
Is great experience in quotes because you don't believe Apple provides that? That's what Apple is known for. Cars aren't replaced often, therefore there's no money in them? And you cannot provide a great living room experience with multiple devices (or one) plus boxes hanging off your TV with inputs to select and other remotes hanging around: and universal remotes are abysmal.
The only way IMO to provide an insanely great living room experience is for the TV to handle everything. Calling it a smart TV is purely marketing, it would be an all-in-one TV. Requiring just one power cable attached to a wall and your iTunes password. You burn everything in your entertainment setup in a metaphorical fire, you open your iTV box, you take out one remote and and TV, you plug it in, you turn it on, you tap your iPhone off it where every password is typed in automatically (including your WiFi password) and away you go. Now you're ready for a truly amazing experience.
And optional you could pick up Apple designed hardware games controllers (for people who like to game) and the included TV remote magnetically charges when placed atop the TV. It could even turn the TV on when you remote is grabbed off the TV. That's the level or cleverness and delight I want in my living room setup. I'd pay 499 - 799 for that setup while signing a two-year contract. And like I have said for numerous times, for good measure Apple would keep the hockey puck around and offer the same contract infused TV package for someone who already owns a decent TV, cannot afford to upgrade yet, or isn't ready to upgrade. Buy when they are that TV would be very appealing. My bet is an awful lot of people with sets less than 6 years old would be replacing their TV with one of these bad boys.
One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote.
Universal remotes suck.
You can't have a great living room experience without one device and one remote controlling everything. And the only way to do that is to have the TV be that everything. In Steve Jobs-esque speak: any alternatives to that is for geeks and low-lifes.
TL;DRBut sadly, all these TV dreams rest on those fat-ass content owners playing ball, but that does not seem to be happening.
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.
Others are free to disagree, but I have an iMac on my desk with a second (Acer) display connected (Full disclosure: I cheaped out [$150ish] when I added the second display). On a daily basis, the second display annoys me greatly based on the quality and resolution. It can't touch the built-in iMac display.
[SIZE=14px][SIZE=14px]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.[/SIZE]
All I have at my only residence is an OTA antenna. The quality is fantastic and it's FREE! When it comes to HD Programming, cable/satellite providers are guilty of highway robbery.
Is great experience in quotes because you don't believe Apple provides that? That's what Apple is known for. Cars aren't replaced often, therefore there's no money in them? And you cannot provide a great living room experience with multiple devices (or one) plus boxes hanging off your TV with inputs to select and other remotes hanging around: and universal remotes are abysmal.
Of course Apple provides a great experience. They can do that with a set top box.
As for cars, 10 years ago we had Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile. Where are those makers now. GM and Dodge had to bailed out.
I have seen that before but that has a spinning disk 2TB hard drive and I don't think Apple will go that route. They have been pushing iTunes in the cloud. I think they would push a streaming only initiative using h.265, which is what Netflix is using for their 4k streaming. Whether they go all in with an actual set is up for debate. Personally, I would totally be up for it because I think it would look great.
They normally go for the full end-to-end eco-system where the quality of the experience is almost fully in their control. Here it really depends on their goal.
The worldwide TV numbers reported are 256m in 2011, 238m in 2012, 225m in 2013. Samsung has roughly 25%, LG 16%, Sony 10%. The upgrade cycle is approximately 7 years.
What the drop in sales means is not that people are stopping buying TVs (in order to use an Apple TV, it requires you to have a TV), it means that people are slowing in buying new TVs. This is the same effect seen with the PC market and more recently with tablets and phones.
The TV box market on the other hand is a growth market because it's not saturated and has a low entry price point. Right now Apple sells around 10 million Apple TVs per year ($1b revenue).
Say that they made a $999 TV and managed to match Sony's marketshare of 10% (22m units), that would be $22b revenue per year.
They have the potential market of over 1 billion TV owners with the box but it depends on how content delivery goes.
If you have a TV that is connected online, there doesn't need to be a box with any high performance capability because the UI can be delivered over the internet like it is with a web page. TV channels would essentially become bookmarks to content streams that can be broadcast by anyone and monetized by Google ads or iAds.
The only hardware you need is a processor capable of streaming video and rendering basic web content - this capability shouldn't change much over time.
If Apple intends to be simply a conduit to other people's content that will be accessible from any box then what is it that sets the Apple TV box apart?
The margins are low for competitors in TVs but they are low for PCs and smartphones/tablets that compete with Apple too.
If we assume that Apple can monetize the content such that each user makes them $30 per year in revenue (this comes from iTunes revenue vs user count), the following are roughly equivalent:
20 million TV units per year at $999 with $30/user
160 million boxes per year at $99 with $30/user
If we assume the TV would be upgraded every 7 years and the box 3 times during the same time, the revenue from this set of buyers over 7 years would be:
(2x $999 + 7x $30) x 20m = $44b
(3x $99 + 7x $30) x 160m = $81b
So the box looks to be the bigger earner if they hit those volumes (or makes the same revenue for just over 4x the units and that's easy at 1/10th the price). There's a while to go before they hit 160m Apple TV buyers per year. If they exceed 30% growth year over year, they'd reach it in 10 years. The problem with the box is simply that eventually people will all have smart functionality inside the TV or direct over the connection so there won't be a demand for additional boxes in which case, they may as well go with a TV unit. If they add games to the TV unit then that's a slightly different story but these can be delivered over a network connection too.
If there's a compelling enough display technology that comes along, then that will create a growth market. Some kind of projection system would be ideal if they can get the quality right by allowing for varying reflectance of the surfaces being projected onto. For now, it looks as though the box would be the best strategy and is fairly non-commital. They don't have to fight to sell the units.
TVs are trending bigger and the margins are getting thinner. The super premium price for the new 4K monitors will probably be short lived. I don't think there is enough margin in TVs for Apple to jump into the game, even for the 4K units. I was a little disappointed when they didn't release their own 4K display to match color of the new Mac Pro. They didn't even make a matching keyboard. TVs are expensive to ship too. No margins, no Apple TV.
But couldn't you say that about anything Apple is in? What are PC margins for companies like HP and Dell (just hardware, not service add ons)? And the same can be said for tablets and phones. All these super cheap tablets and off-contract phones certainly can't have huge margins. Heck, companies like Amazon and Google basically sell them for cost. The only thing different about. TVs is people don't upgrade as often. Of course that hasn't stopped people thinking Apple should get in the car business, even though people probably by news cars as often as they do new TVs.
But couldn't you say that about anything Apple is in? What are PC margins for companies like HP and Dell (just hardware, not service add ons)? And the same can be said for tablets and phones. All these super cheap tablets and off-contract phones certainly can't have huge margins. Heck, companies like Amazon and Google basically sell them for cost. The only thing different about. TVs is people don't upgrade as often. Of course that hasn't stopped people thinking Apple should get in the car business, even though people probably by news cars as often as they do new TVs.
Yes but can Apple offer something much better than is already out? Build quality means much more when a device is constantly handled, and I doubt they're going to make a TV set out of a single piece of milled aluminum. Their display isn't going to be any better. So what compelling and 'have to have' feature can Apple offer that will get people to dump their current TVs and buy Apple's?
That reminds me, I am surprised we haven't heard a peep from Apple yet about h.265...
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad
I have seen that before but that has a spinning disk 2TB hard drive and I don't think Apple will go that route. They have been pushing iTunes in the cloud. I think they would push a streaming only initiative using h.265, which is what Netflix is using for their 4k streaming. Whether they go all in with an actual set is up for debate. Personally, I would totally be up for it because I think it would look great.
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.
While that can be imagined technically, it's not happening for several reasons:
1. The net infrastructure in the U.S. isn't robust enough. Even with my supposed high-speed connection today, when I watch net-based services on my TV, they frequently "stutter" and that's with 1080 content. With 4K it needs almost 4x the bandwidth.
2. Apple doesn't control or own the content and unlike the music industry, they're unlikely to get it. Why? Because the content owners (the cable networks) aren't going to jeopardize the giant revenue streams they get from the MSOs (Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, Verizon FIOS, etc.) The MSOs largely have exclusives on this content, although their rights are also limited so for the most part, they couldn't license most programming to Apple either.
The difference with the music industry (and movie industry) was that there was nothing in the relationship with physical retail (which was dying due to illegal downloading anyway) that stopped the music industry from doing a deal with Apple. That's not the case with cable-TV programming.
3. Assuming that you're correct and that "cable" programming moves from proprietary pipes to the net, that doesn't change the business relationship between the cable networks and today's MSOs. All it does is make the infrastructure costs lower. And it still doesn't provide a way for Apple to get the content. The only way Apple gets to play in this game is if they buy or become an MSO. And I think they missed that opportunity when Comcast came in and bought Time-Warner Cable (although still facing Government approval). Even if they had, they would have had to renegotiate every contract with the program suppliers in order to put all the content up on the "Apple TV". Aside from that, they'll be limited to relatively little TV content, as they are today.
So while Apple has been great at turning industries upside down, I don't see how they get to revolutionize this industry no matter how great a UI they're able to provide. And I'm not sure they can even do that. The current Apple TV works, but is certainly very vanilla and not very different than Netflix, Amazon video, VUDU and countless other services.
The problem with TVs today is that when you want to watch a streaming source vs. an OTA or cable channel, you've got to change inputs if one is using an external device (like a BD player, ROKU stick or Apple TV box) and if using a source native to the TV, several clicks to get to the other source and then more clicks to pick the programming you want to watch. An ideal UI would enable selection from a central place and then the TV would automatically switch to the right source. If everything is coming down the net, that would make it easier, but while cable TV subs are in slow decline, I can't see the vast majority of consumers giving up their cable TV/satellite connections anytime in the next ten years.
While that can be imagined technically, it's not happening for several reasons:
1. The net infrastructure in the U.S. isn't robust enough. Even with my supposed high-speed connection today, when I watch net-based services on my TV, they frequently "stutter" and that's with 1080 content. With 4K it needs almost 4x the bandwidth.
2. Apple doesn't control or own the content and unlike the music industry, they're unlikely to get it. Why? Because the content owners (the cable networks) aren't going to jeopardize the giant revenue streams they get from the MSOs (Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, Verizon FIOS, etc.) The MSOs largely have exclusives on this content, although their rights are also limited so for the most part, they couldn't license most programming to Apple either.
The difference with the music industry (and movie industry) was that there was nothing in the relationship with physical retail (which was dying due to illegal downloading anyway) that stopped the music industry from doing a deal with Apple. That's not the case with cable-TV programming.
3. Assuming that you're correct and that "cable" programming moves from proprietary pipes to the net, that doesn't change the business relationship between the cable networks and today's MSOs. All it does is make the infrastructure costs lower. And it still doesn't provide a way for Apple to get the content. The only way Apple gets to play in this game is if they buy or become an MSO. And I think they missed that opportunity when Comcast came in and bought Time-Warner Cable (although still facing Government approval). Even if they had, they would have had to renegotiate every contract with the program suppliers in order to put all the content up on the "Apple TV". Aside from that, they'll be limited to relatively little TV content, as they are today.
So while Apple has been great at turning industries upside down, I don't see how they get to revolutionize this industry no matter how great a UI they're able to provide. And I'm not sure they can even do that. The current Apple TV works, but is certainly very vanilla and not very different than Netflix, Amazon video, VUDU and countless other services.
The stuttering isn't caused by your connection nor your speed. It's most likely happening at the handoff from one network (streaming company's ISP) to your local network.
Yes they do. End of story. Yuck! I'd rather use a stylus with my smartphone than a universal remote. And I wouldn't use a stylus. Universal remotes are attempting to fix a problem that shouldn't exist were Apple to have the power to pull the strings and do a TV right. You'd have a single elegant remote and a TV. That's it. If you can't understand that that is not better than a TV with a few leads and boxes (or even just 1) hanging off your TV and a universal remote with an input switcher, I can't help you. Is it an Apple experience you're interested in, correct?
There's no point in arguing this when, and I'm going to sound arrogant here, you just don't get it. You're a geek. Back in the world of Mom and Pop simplicity is everything. "Hon, do you remember back when we had to switch inputs on a universal remote to change which device you wanted to interact with?". "Yeah, that was stupid." "Imagine now we can do everything now with just one TV and a remote. Gone are the days of boxes and wires and clutter under the TV. Now you can simply hang your TV on the wall and away you go. And if something goes wrong we call Apple and they handle everything. It's great."
As for cars, 10 years ago we had Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile. Where are those makers now. GM and Dodge had to bailed out.
Exactly. Apple is forcing cellphone companies out of business and taking their profits. With the right content deal Apple could sell a compelling TV at a subsidised price with a two-year contract. If they built it people would come. But the content deal is key and Apple knows it. Steve Jobs basically said so himself at the D conference: There has been talk several times of Apple trying to get an all-you-eat TV package, but the cable companies who own the rights are clearly afraid to cut Apple that deal because they know Apple would own the market.
Comments
Sony has had one for some time now:
https://store.sony.com/4k-ultra-hd-media-player-zid27-FMPX1/cat-27-catid-All-Internet-Players
Quote:
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.
I haven't replaced my 7 year old LCD TV because:
It still works
I don't watch much
My wife, who does watch a lot, is happy with it
We have better things to spend our money on
I absolutely refuse to buy a "smart" TV
I haven't replaced my 7 year old LCD TV because:
It still works
I don't watch much
My wife, who does watch a lot, is happy with it
We have better things to spend our money on
I absolutely refuse to buy a "smart" TV
You don't watch much, enough said.
Where are you getting $499 from? And what size would the screen be?
That's my guess at the subsidised price. But like I say, it won't happen because the content owners won't play ball so Apple cannot do the contract they want to.
What about smart phones? If you said the dumb phone bandwagon, it'll fit in with netbooks and smart TVs.
TVs aren't replace often. Cell phones are generally replaced when the contract is up. Computers are replaced when they get obsolete due to software or they fail or warranty expires. TVs get replaced when they fail.
Why would Apple subsidize the tv price? And Apple's "great experience" can rely on a set top box.
Is great experience in quotes because you don't believe Apple provides that? That's what Apple is known for. Cars aren't replaced often, therefore there's no money in them? And you cannot provide a great living room experience with multiple devices (or one) plus boxes hanging off your TV with inputs to select and other remotes hanging around: and universal remotes are abysmal.
The only way IMO to provide an insanely great living room experience is for the TV to handle everything. Calling it a smart TV is purely marketing, it would be an all-in-one TV. Requiring just one power cable attached to a wall and your iTunes password. You burn everything in your entertainment setup in a metaphorical fire, you open your iTV box, you take out one remote and and TV, you plug it in, you turn it on, you tap your iPhone off it where every password is typed in automatically (including your WiFi password) and away you go. Now you're ready for a truly amazing experience.
And optional you could pick up Apple designed hardware games controllers (for people who like to game) and the included TV remote magnetically charges when placed atop the TV. It could even turn the TV on when you remote is grabbed off the TV. That's the level or cleverness and delight I want in my living room setup. I'd pay 499 - 799 for that setup while signing a two-year contract. And like I have said for numerous times, for good measure Apple would keep the hockey puck around and offer the same contract infused TV package for someone who already owns a decent TV, cannot afford to upgrade yet, or isn't ready to upgrade. Buy when they are that TV would be very appealing. My bet is an awful lot of people with sets less than 6 years old would be replacing their TV with one of these bad boys.
One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote. One remote.
Universal remotes suck.
You can't have a great living room experience without one device and one remote controlling everything. And the only way to do that is to have the TV be that everything. In Steve Jobs-esque speak: any alternatives to that is for geeks and low-lifes.
TL;DR But sadly, all these TV dreams rest on those fat-ass content owners playing ball, but that does not seem to be happening.
Others are free to disagree, but I have an iMac on my desk with a second (Acer) display connected (Full disclosure: I cheaped out [$150ish] when I added the second display). On a daily basis, the second display annoys me greatly based on the quality and resolution. It can't touch the built-in iMac display.
Agree 100%.
All I have at my only residence is an OTA antenna. The quality is fantastic and it's FREE! When it comes to HD Programming, cable/satellite providers are guilty of highway robbery.
As for cars, 10 years ago we had Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile. Where are those makers now. GM and Dodge had to bailed out.
I have seen that before but that has a spinning disk 2TB hard drive and I don't think Apple will go that route. They have been pushing iTunes in the cloud. I think they would push a streaming only initiative using h.265, which is what Netflix is using for their 4k streaming. Whether they go all in with an actual set is up for debate. Personally, I would totally be up for it because I think it would look great.
What on Earth would be so confusing about a new Apple Remote for the Apple TV box that has a power button and volume up and down? Problem solved.
They normally go for the full end-to-end eco-system where the quality of the experience is almost fully in their control. Here it really depends on their goal.
The worldwide TV numbers reported are 256m in 2011, 238m in 2012, 225m in 2013. Samsung has roughly 25%, LG 16%, Sony 10%. The upgrade cycle is approximately 7 years.
What the drop in sales means is not that people are stopping buying TVs (in order to use an Apple TV, it requires you to have a TV), it means that people are slowing in buying new TVs. This is the same effect seen with the PC market and more recently with tablets and phones.
The TV box market on the other hand is a growth market because it's not saturated and has a low entry price point. Right now Apple sells around 10 million Apple TVs per year ($1b revenue).
Say that they made a $999 TV and managed to match Sony's marketshare of 10% (22m units), that would be $22b revenue per year.
They have the potential market of over 1 billion TV owners with the box but it depends on how content delivery goes.
If you have a TV that is connected online, there doesn't need to be a box with any high performance capability because the UI can be delivered over the internet like it is with a web page. TV channels would essentially become bookmarks to content streams that can be broadcast by anyone and monetized by Google ads or iAds.
The only hardware you need is a processor capable of streaming video and rendering basic web content - this capability shouldn't change much over time.
If Apple intends to be simply a conduit to other people's content that will be accessible from any box then what is it that sets the Apple TV box apart?
The margins are low for competitors in TVs but they are low for PCs and smartphones/tablets that compete with Apple too.
If we assume that Apple can monetize the content such that each user makes them $30 per year in revenue (this comes from iTunes revenue vs user count), the following are roughly equivalent:
20 million TV units per year at $999 with $30/user
160 million boxes per year at $99 with $30/user
If we assume the TV would be upgraded every 7 years and the box 3 times during the same time, the revenue from this set of buyers over 7 years would be:
(2x $999 + 7x $30) x 20m = $44b
(3x $99 + 7x $30) x 160m = $81b
So the box looks to be the bigger earner if they hit those volumes (or makes the same revenue for just over 4x the units and that's easy at 1/10th the price). There's a while to go before they hit 160m Apple TV buyers per year. If they exceed 30% growth year over year, they'd reach it in 10 years. The problem with the box is simply that eventually people will all have smart functionality inside the TV or direct over the connection so there won't be a demand for additional boxes in which case, they may as well go with a TV unit. If they add games to the TV unit then that's a slightly different story but these can be delivered over a network connection too.
If there's a compelling enough display technology that comes along, then that will create a growth market. Some kind of projection system would be ideal if they can get the quality right by allowing for varying reflectance of the surfaces being projected onto. For now, it looks as though the box would be the best strategy and is fairly non-commital. They don't have to fight to sell the units.
Yes but can Apple offer something much better than is already out? Build quality means much more when a device is constantly handled, and I doubt they're going to make a TV set out of a single piece of milled aluminum. Their display isn't going to be any better. So what compelling and 'have to have' feature can Apple offer that will get people to dump their current TVs and buy Apple's?
That reminds me, I am surprised we haven't heard a peep from Apple yet about h.265...
Quote:
I have seen that before but that has a spinning disk 2TB hard drive and I don't think Apple will go that route. They have been pushing iTunes in the cloud. I think they would push a streaming only initiative using h.265, which is what Netflix is using for their 4k streaming. Whether they go all in with an actual set is up for debate. Personally, I would totally be up for it because I think it would look great.
Yeah. It hasn't hit the mainstream yet. Netflix is still testing it. I think we'll see it in this years products.
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.
While that can be imagined technically, it's not happening for several reasons:
1. The net infrastructure in the U.S. isn't robust enough. Even with my supposed high-speed connection today, when I watch net-based services on my TV, they frequently "stutter" and that's with 1080 content. With 4K it needs almost 4x the bandwidth.
2. Apple doesn't control or own the content and unlike the music industry, they're unlikely to get it. Why? Because the content owners (the cable networks) aren't going to jeopardize the giant revenue streams they get from the MSOs (Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, Verizon FIOS, etc.) The MSOs largely have exclusives on this content, although their rights are also limited so for the most part, they couldn't license most programming to Apple either.
The difference with the music industry (and movie industry) was that there was nothing in the relationship with physical retail (which was dying due to illegal downloading anyway) that stopped the music industry from doing a deal with Apple. That's not the case with cable-TV programming.
3. Assuming that you're correct and that "cable" programming moves from proprietary pipes to the net, that doesn't change the business relationship between the cable networks and today's MSOs. All it does is make the infrastructure costs lower. And it still doesn't provide a way for Apple to get the content. The only way Apple gets to play in this game is if they buy or become an MSO. And I think they missed that opportunity when Comcast came in and bought Time-Warner Cable (although still facing Government approval). Even if they had, they would have had to renegotiate every contract with the program suppliers in order to put all the content up on the "Apple TV". Aside from that, they'll be limited to relatively little TV content, as they are today.
So while Apple has been great at turning industries upside down, I don't see how they get to revolutionize this industry no matter how great a UI they're able to provide. And I'm not sure they can even do that. The current Apple TV works, but is certainly very vanilla and not very different than Netflix, Amazon video, VUDU and countless other services.
The problem with TVs today is that when you want to watch a streaming source vs. an OTA or cable channel, you've got to change inputs if one is using an external device (like a BD player, ROKU stick or Apple TV box) and if using a source native to the TV, several clicks to get to the other source and then more clicks to pick the programming you want to watch. An ideal UI would enable selection from a central place and then the TV would automatically switch to the right source. If everything is coming down the net, that would make it easier, but while cable TV subs are in slow decline, I can't see the vast majority of consumers giving up their cable TV/satellite connections anytime in the next ten years.
The stuttering isn't caused by your connection nor your speed. It's most likely happening at the handoff from one network (streaming company's ISP) to your local network.
Yes they do. End of story. Yuck! I'd rather use a stylus with my smartphone than a universal remote. And I wouldn't use a stylus. Universal remotes are attempting to fix a problem that shouldn't exist were Apple to have the power to pull the strings and do a TV right. You'd have a single elegant remote and a TV. That's it. If you can't understand that that is not better than a TV with a few leads and boxes (or even just 1) hanging off your TV and a universal remote with an input switcher, I can't help you. Is it an Apple experience you're interested in, correct?
There's no point in arguing this when, and I'm going to sound arrogant here, you just don't get it. You're a geek. Back in the world of Mom and Pop simplicity is everything. "Hon, do you remember back when we had to switch inputs on a universal remote to change which device you wanted to interact with?". "Yeah, that was stupid." "Imagine now we can do everything now with just one TV and a remote. Gone are the days of boxes and wires and clutter under the TV. Now you can simply hang your TV on the wall and away you go. And if something goes wrong we call Apple and they handle everything. It's great."
That's the dream. That'd be insanely great.
Exactly. Apple is forcing cellphone companies out of business and taking their profits. With the right content deal Apple could sell a compelling TV at a subsidised price with a two-year contract. If they built it people would come. But the content deal is key and Apple knows it. Steve Jobs basically said so himself at the D conference: