What if Apple introduced a 55" 4k set with built-in iTV for $1995? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 02:22 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just thinking out loud after a saw an article online suggesting such a thing.

I do recall watching Steve's intro of the iPad...I remember thinking through the presentation (hmmm, $799? $899? $699?). When he announced the price of $499, I knew the product would sell like hotcakes, and it obviously has.

Apple has a lot of experience with monitors. If you look at the current iMacs, those things are THIN and pack a rocking computer, as well. Imagine Apple utilizing that knowledge and blowing the market's socks off with a brilliantly designed Apple branded 4k TV for under two grand. We would be talking decimation of the entire TV industry.

Once again, just pondering the idea.

Feel free to jump in to blow the idea to smithereens or whatever you feel!
johnnyvn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nethawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 115
What if pigs could fly? biggrin.gif

I think your price is off by about a grand.

Decimating? Sorry, that's for you fanbois to discuss.

Nethawk is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 02:56 PM
Member
 
Superguy25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

What if pigs could fly? biggrin.gif

I think your price is off by about a grand.

Decimating? Sorry, that's for you fanbois to discuss.

I'd slap at least another $500 for the Apple tax that will go on it simply for the privilege of having an Apple pasted on the side of it too.
Superguy25 is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 03:01 PM
Member
 
bbydon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Most people don't upgrade TV's like they do gadgets. Even computers have a quicker upgrade cycles than TV's.
I think a box is the best your gonna get.
bbydon is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 03:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
The price sounds about right, but the set wouldn't be 4k. It would be a 55" 1080p set with built in i-TV and built in storage.

$2000 for the 100GB model
$2500 for the 500GB model
$3000 for the 1TB model

Apple's iMac's aren't that impressive, they're just white and expensive.

Louquid is offline  
post #6 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 04:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ah, many interesting comments!

I can't imagine Apple actually offering a TV for sale unless it was a 4k, since that's the new frontier. Apple has never in its history been a "me-too" type of company which simply offers their version of a well established market. No, they typically either start new markets (ie, tablets, even though prior tablets had been created but not widely accepted) or disrupt markets (Macintosh, iTunes/iPod/music industry).

I think the likely scenario would either be 1) no TV, but rather just a set-top box or 2) a 4k TV at a price which would decimate the market for other players.

Nethawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhBUpfFSaQ I was there! And at the end, they released it to float away into the night sky! WOW!

BBYdon: Agree fully. However, don't we think that, over the next 2-6 years, many/most American households will upgrade to 4k? Perfect time for Apple to jump in.

Louquid: You forgot one thing. White, expensive and designed spectacularly. And out of all the gadgets in the household, what is the one thing that we want to look nice? The TV.

By the way, the article that raised this issue was here: http://www.t-gaap.com/2013/5/13/Sony-sets-the-stage-for-Apple-to-dominate-the-4K-HDTV-market#.UZF3NSsjqok
johnnyvn is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 06:54 PM
Senior Member
 
1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyvn View Post

Just thinking out loud after a saw an article online suggesting such a thing.

I do recall watching Steve's intro of the iPad...I remember thinking through the presentation (hmmm, $799? $899? $699?). When he announced the price of $499, I knew the product would sell like hotcakes, and it obviously has.

Apple has a lot of experience with monitors. If you look at the current iMacs, those things are THIN and pack a rocking computer, as well. Imagine Apple utilizing that knowledge and blowing the market's socks off with a brilliantly designed Apple branded 4k TV for under two grand. We would be talking decimation of the entire TV industry.

Once again, just pondering the idea.

Feel free to jump in to blow the idea to smithereens or whatever you feel!

Apple is not going to decimate the TV industry, that's a ludicrous claim. You forget that Apple tax will be applied to a new Apple product line, so whatever you think the price is going to be, add $500 Apple tax and then $1000-$1500 if the panel happens to be 4K (unlikely). I'm sure Apple see next to no value in 4K resolution in a sub-60" panel, and rightfully so - it's completely pointless. 4K is almost pointless in any panel under 80" really, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Apple TVs at 80+ inches.

What I see in their future are 46" and 55" 1080p panels that look dead sexy in silver, super-thin or whatever... with the ATV-like interface built in and maybe a HDD for a price +$1k over what you pay Sony/Samsung. I also expect them to have issues like dead pixels, yellow caste and all the other issues I've seen with Apple's "quality" displays over the last 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, I like Apple products, I have an Air, ipad and an iMac at home but to suggest that the Apple TV is going to be anything but a bog-standard 1080p panel at a high price with all the usual quality-control pitfalls of LCD panels - that's a big call.

1000

1000
1000 is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 07:18 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
1000,

I don't think that many industry pundits predicted that the first iPad would be priced at $499.00. In that case, I believe that Apple went with a low price in order to corner and capture the market that didn't really even exist prior. Can we agree there?

Using the same strategy, Apple could be one of the most likely companies to at least *attempt* to corner and capture the 4k market. I say this for many reasons; 1) they have been making monitors for decades and thus, have much experience there, 2) the buzz on 4k technology is just now starting to gain some traction - meaning, it's a good time for someone to step up and disrupt with a breakthrough product, 3) in general, Apple doesn't do things *in a small way* - rather, they like to make a huge splash when entering a new market - and it's hard for me to imagine them just now entering a market which is pretty well fully matured 4) their (low) pricing might be possible because they may sell many more units than a Sony brand, simply because of the "fanboy" factor and 5) their entire "retina display" leads right into 4k technology by allowing them to say "view your TV at the same ultra-high resolution as your iPad".

OR, as was mentioned above, perhaps this will never happen, but rather it will always be a set-top box type of product, as it is now...
johnnyvn is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyvn View Post

Ah, many interesting comments!

I can't imagine Apple actually offering a TV for sale unless it was a 4k, since that's the new frontier. Apple has never in its history been a "me-too" type of company which simply offers their version of a well established market. No, they typically either start new markets (ie, tablets, even though prior tablets had been created but not widely accepted) or disrupt markets (Macintosh, iTunes/iPod/music industry)....
Click the 'Steve Jobs' link in my signature...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Just as big an idea thief as)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
olyteddy is offline  
post #10 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
undermined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
If Sony is selling a 55" 4K set for $4999.99 there isn't a possible reason why Apple would try and fight in a down-market price range.

Apple has never sold a "cheap" or even really a value range in recent history so if they did decide to do a 4K Apple TV display it would be using the same source as Sony most likely since 4K panels aren't plentiful or varied and they certainly will not be bringing to market "affordable" large format OLED 4K screens.

Apple doesn't even own a display fab that they might leverage so just as in 100% of all their other products , they would have to contract out for panels and they like high end quality screens like premium IPS panels so there isn't a lot of reason they would ignore all the markeyt issues of selling a TV type display and the way they have done successful premium products up until just to make a Apple TV display.

If there is one thing Apple is know for it is that they love profits and they still charge thousands more for outdated desktops just because they know they can milk some remaining "pro" consumers. If they did a large OLED their prices would likely make B&O sets seem reasonably priced in comparison.
undermined is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 1,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 95
OP is dreaming. Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt display sells for $1000, and it's a monitor without any storage, smart capability, nor is it even 4K.

ht Panasonic 60" ZT60, Monitor Audio: Silver RX6, RX Centre, Radius 90HD; Martinlogan Dynamo 700, Marantz SR5006, PS3, Oppo BDP-103D
2ch Sony KDL-32W650A, Sony BDP-S1000ES, Marantz PM8004, JVC T-X3 tuner, Monitor Audio Silver RX1, REL T3, Apple TV, Peachtree Audio DAC•iT, Sennheiser HD598
lr Panasonic 50" ST60, Sony BDP-S5100, Apple TV
pc Energy CB-5, Audioengine D1, FiiO A1
fatuglyguy is online now  
post #12 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 07:43 PM
Member
 
bbydon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by undermined View Post

If Sony is selling a 55" 4K set for $4999.99 there isn't a possible reason why
If there is one thing Apple is know for it is that they love profits and they still charge thousands more for outdated desktops just because they know they can milk some remaining "pro" consumers. If they did a large OLED their prices would likely make B&O sets seem reasonably priced in comparison.

Apple's update cycles are too long thats why the computers seem overpriced. When they are first released they are right in line for the same spec computer from Dell or HP. But because Apple doesn't update frequently or discount they get stuck with the "overpriced" label.
bbydon is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 08:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Radio81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Yeah I'm sure it will be innovative...


Apple iTV, now with 120Hz refresh rate and local dimming.

No it's not "technically" 4K, but it can match it.

Will the remote have more than one button?

AC charger sold separately?

tongue.gif
Radio81 is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 08:14 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
oly,

Kind of a pointless reference, especially in reference to my "me-too" comment. Again, Apple has never entered any established market that I can think of with just a "me-too" product (ala Zune, ala the Facebook phone, ala Surface).

There was no graphical interface available commercially prior to Apple's licensing of the tech from PARC and introducing the Macintosh. The world has gone on to use graphical interfaces in computing to this day. In fact, we're both using one right now. Apple popularized the format based on tech licensed from PARC, which was not selling the technology commercially.

MP3 players, prior to the iPod, were only offered by less than a handful of companies (actually, I only know of the Diamond Rio), had very little storage to speak of (like 128 songs or something ridiculous compared with the thousands stored by the iPod), had no usable software ala iTunes. Over the years, iPods have been the de facto standard for that format.

There was really no commercially strong tablet market prior to the introduction of the iPad. Once again, Apple pioneered the market and the me-toos have jumped in.

And let's be honest. Compared with the Nokias, LG's etc on the market at the time, and even with the Palm, the introduction of the iPhone was far, far away from a me-too product. And of course, we are now, to a large degree, working on smartphones which closely resemble the iPhone's original form factor and use.

A bit hard to say whether Apple would/could introduce a reasonably priced 4k TV ala their $499 pricing of the iPad. Many good arguments have presented as to why not. However, Apple's motto has always been, "Think Different", so I still think there's a possibility (perhaps a tiny one, even I may admit)...
johnnyvn is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 05-13-2013, 08:17 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post

OP is dreaming. Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt display sells for $1000, and it's a monitor without any storage, smart capability, nor is it even 4K.

Keep in mind that an Apple TV is only $99.00, so there are the smart guts. Storage may be less of an issue than you think, given that Apple's concept has always been tied to content-on-demand via their cloud and other main computers/devices in the building.

Doesn't mean I'm not dreaming, but a lot of what you mentioned wouldn't be expensive for Apple to include...
johnnyvn is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 05:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I think the only people who would be excited for an Apple TV are those already excited by Apple's products. Nothing wrong with liking Apple, but it's products aren't really that great. The iPad is the only product they have that is currently considered the "best" in it's class.

Apple would most likely need either Sharp or Samsung to provide the display for their TV's.

Louquid is offline  
post #17 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 06:18 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

I think the only people who would be excited for an Apple TV are those already excited by Apple's products. Nothing wrong with liking Apple, but it's products aren't really that great. The iPad is the only product they have that is currently considered the "best" in it's class.

Apple would most likely need either Sharp or Samsung to provide the display for their TV's.

Louquid, when you say that Apple's products aren't really that great, I believe it's fair to say that you are offering your own opinion on said topic, as the facts don't support you at all on that. Apple's consumer satisfaction ratings destroy the competition quarter after quarter after quarter, year after year after year, regardless of whether the product in question is a smartphone, tablet or computer. Stop and think about that for a second...is there a better indicator of "great" than customer satisfaction?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416906,00.asp
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/04/29/ipad-tops-j-d-powers-customer-satisfaction-survey-for-second-y/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231399/Apple_keeps_top_spot_in_customer_satisfaction

To boost Apple's desirability in regards to a TV, Apple's App Store offering is far greater than any other, and iTunes is still very much the de facto standard for media and content organization and already integrates nicely with Apple TV. All of which seem to be indicators that there *could* be a lot of people interested in an Apple branded TV, no?
johnnyvn is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 08:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyvn View Post

Louquid, when you say that Apple's products aren't really that great, I believe it's fair to say that you are offering your own opinion on said topic, as the facts don't support you at all on that. Apple's consumer satisfaction ratings destroy the competition quarter after quarter after quarter, year after year after year, regardless of whether the product in question is a smartphone, tablet or computer. Stop and think about that for a second...is there a better indicator of "great" than customer satisfaction?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416906,00.asp
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/04/29/ipad-tops-j-d-powers-customer-satisfaction-survey-for-second-y/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231399/Apple_keeps_top_spot_in_customer_satisfaction

To boost Apple's desirability in regards to a TV, Apple's App Store offering is far greater than any other, and iTunes is still very much the de facto standard for media and content organization and already integrates nicely with Apple TV. All of which seem to be indicators that there *could* be a lot of people interested in an Apple branded TV, no?

I am stating my own opinion, but it's an opinion I share with many others. It's pretty obvious that you're opinion of Apple is only positive. I get the feeling you own all Apple gear. Hopefully you don't, because you're only limiting yourself by being such a diehard fan of one company.

The consumer base for Apple products isn't like the consumer base for Apple's competition. That should be obvious. Apple appeals to those who rather have something they are told is nice because they have a hard time deciding for themselves. There is nothing wrong with this at all, it's just the way it is. Their products are extremely user friendly, which I find impressive. But, the ease of use for the average Joe seems to come at the cost of tight control over how you use their product. Some people want to be told how to be safe, while most others rather do it on their own.

I haven't met anyone in my field who prefers to use Apple computers or phones. Their tablets are good for personal use, but aren't very functional in a technical work environment.

I've already said that those who would be interested in an Apple TV would be those who already are interested in Apples products. People who find the iPhone 5 revolutionary, the iMac a rocking computer, and iTunes to be the ultimate media player, would all be interested in a TV made by Apple. It's just that the price Apple would have to set it at to retain it's "high-brow" status would throw off the average person searching for a TV. While the experienced users would already know they could get a much better performing TV for much less money.

Louquid is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 10:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Louquid, I honestly feel that your opinions don't correlate well to the real world, because the consumer base has spoken over and over again that Apple products bring the highest level of customer satisfaction. Quite frankly, your opinion or my opinion are basically of limited value when you factor in the consumer base at large. Your assertion that anyone chooses Apple because they can't make up their own mind isn't borne out by the after-purchase satisfaction. In fact, the opposite is true in smartphones, tablets, MP3 players and computers. People purchase products of all types by all manufacturers and perhaps for a variety of reasons (some, yes, choosing xxx because they can't make up their own mind). Some time later, they are asked whether they are satisfied with their purchase. Over and over again, Apple tops the list. What does that tell you? People are more satisfied with their Apple purchases than purchases of products from other manufacturers. I think that's what every company strives for, isn't it?

Getting back to TV, my earlier assertion was that Apple chose to price the iPad very aggressively upon release. I presume that this was done to corner the market which Jobs believed would end up being very large. With that in mind, I believe there is a possibility (albeit, perhaps, a tiny one) that Apple would use the coming 4k technology to pull another such move.

Or perhaps, as others have stated above, the Apple TV set-top box will be Apple's only product into the world of television. Time will tell!
johnnyvn is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 10:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyvn View Post

Louquid, I honestly feel that your opinions don't correlate well to the real world, because the consumer base has spoken over and over again that Apple products bring the highest level of customer satisfaction. Quite frankly, your opinion or my opinion are basically of limited value when you factor in the consumer base at large. Your assertion that anyone chooses Apple because they can't make up their own mind isn't borne out by the after-purchase satisfaction. In fact, the opposite is true in smartphones, tablets, MP3 players and computers. People purchase products of all types by all manufacturers and perhaps for a variety of reasons (some, yes, choosing xxx because they can't make up their own mind). Some time later, they are asked whether they are satisfied with their purchase. Over and over again, Apple tops the list. What does that tell you? People are more satisfied with their Apple purchases than purchases of products from other manufacturers. I think that's what every company strives for, isn't it?

Getting back to TV, my earlier assertion was that Apple chose to price the iPad very aggressively upon release. I presume that this was done to corner the market which Jobs believed would end up being very large. With that in mind, I believe there is a possibility (albeit, perhaps, a tiny one) that Apple would use the coming 4k technology to pull another such move.

Or perhaps, as others have stated above, the Apple TV set-top box will be Apple's only product into the world of television. Time will tell!

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make here. Just because Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings, doesn't mean it's the best product available. Apple targets users who want an easy, foolproof product that they won't get lost in. I don't want to sound like an anti-Apple person here, but Apple targets people who want cool techie gadgets but aren't truly experienced or knowledgeable enough to use them. This is why my 70 year old dad can barely change the channel on the TV but can use his iPhone to text me happy birthday and check the local weather.

After-purchase satisfaction would be high with people who don't realize what they're product lacks or fails at.

Apple could very well make a TV, a 4k one at that, but no way will it be anything but overpriced and overhyped.

Louquid is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 10:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make here. Just because Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings, doesn't mean it's the best product available. Apple targets users who want an easy, foolproof product that they won't get lost in. I don't want to sound like an anti-Apple person here, but Apple targets people who want cool techie gadgets but aren't truly experienced or knowledgeable enough to use them. This is why my 70 year old dad can barely change the channel on the TV but can use his iPhone to text me happy birthday and check the local weather.

After-purchase satisfaction would be high with people who don't realize what they're product lacks or fails at.

Apple could very well make a TV, a 4k one at that, but no way will it be anything but overpriced and overhyped.

But I think you're missing my point, as well. You said "...satisfaction would be high with people who don't realize what they're (sic) product lacks or fails at".

If that were true, why aren't the companies who manufacture such "better" products at the top of the satisfaction charts? The answer is, at the end of the day, customers are most satisfied with their Apple purchases. Try as you may to spin it, that's the reality, and it is true in every single category in which Apple competes.

Getting back to TV, you also said "no way will it be anything but overpriced and overhyped". Again, I point to the iPad. At the time of its release, it was anything but overpriced and overhyped. In fact, it was underpriced (checked the prices on Surface?) and only Jobs could have anticipated the massive reception it would receive. The naysayers were out in force, yet the brilliance of the product shone through.

I think the same could be true with a 4k TV. Just as the consumer market never even anticipated the possible success of a tablet, I don't think we could anticipate what Apple might do in that space if it wanted to similarly disrupt and conquer it...
johnnyvn is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 12:55 PM
Member
 
Superguy25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It cracks me up how people act like Apple and anything it does is like the second coming of Christ.rolleyes.gif

I think this also ignores the fact of where Apple was prior to the iPod. It was nothing more than a niche player that almost went bankrupt had it not been for investments by others like Microsoft.

I'd say the only innovative thing Apple did was the iPod. That was disruptive.

Everything else?

Computers? Always focused more on the cool than functional. MacOS up until OS X was a horrid OS. I cringed every time I had to work on it. OS X was a much better OS, but it's largely BSD with a fancier, easy to use GUI. They later switched to Intel based platforms, so aside from the software and the looks, you're running the same hardware as any other PC. Well, maybe with hardware a year or two behind a competing PC.

iPhone? Not as disruptive as people think. Apple largely rode the success of the iPod here and created a phone that was hardware wise, behind the competition. It created an easy to use system, but pretty much the iPhone was just an iPod with a phone in it. You were stuck with EDGE communication which was as bad as a 56k modem while the rest of the country was on 3G. Smartphones had been around for years at this point, and their predecessor PDAs had been around for quite awhile before that. Windows Mobile sucked for sure, and Microsoft missed the boat in doing something better. Windows Phone was about 3 years too late. Every iteration since the original iPhone has been an incremental improvement over the previous, with hardware features that were easily 12-18 months behind competing platforms.
Android had been in development sine 2005. People always point to the iPhone outselling the competition. What they forget is that Android as a whole easily outsells Apple, and Samsung now sells more phones than Apple. That doesn't even take into account HTC, Nokia, LG, Motorola, etc. Samsung also provides more choice than Apple. You want a phablet? Take the Note. Want a phone? Take a Galaxy S variant, or anything HTC offers. Want a truly innovative tablet? Take a Note Tablet or The Nexus 7 (how's that for affordability and features?)? What choice does Apple offer? This year or last year's model, plus your storage capacity. Big whoop.

Instead of competing on merits, Apple prefers to sue everyone. If you can't innovate, you litigate. Apple isn't much more than a patent troll that's resting on its laurels these days.

Tablets? An old concept Apple improved upon. Tablets were around in 2002 and 2003. They didn't catch on then, but that was largely due to the tech not being ready. WinXP wasn't the best platform for it either. Apple didn't really do anything innovative here - just made a bigger iPod.

iTunes? You either love it or you hate it. Personally, I hate the arrogance of the program that thinks it can organize my media better than I can, and won't allow me to change it back. I also don't like how it tries to take over your computer.

Apple TV? HTPCs have been around for ages. Apple packaged its solution up in a cute box. Big deal.

Anyway, you get my point.

Bottom line is this: Apple knows its target market very well, and sells to them. These are people who were largely Apple fans, and people easily swayed by them without actually taking a lot at the competition. If you want a tightly controlled product that works well and looks cool, but isn't the most technologically advanced, you buy an Apple. If you want to buy essentially the same product year after year with incremental updates, you buy an Apple. If you want freedom, choice, and newer tech, you buy something else.

Apple loves people that will keep buying essentially the same products over and over. My hat's off to them for figuring out how to do that.

Buying Apple (or any other brand really) is like buying Hondas every time you go to buy a car. You can be perfectly happy with the purchase, and so much so that you won't look at other options. However, it also blinds you to other options that may be a better fit, a better value, or a better product. I may be less than satisfied with a given product from a manufacturer, but I'm also free to find another product for the same vendor or find something from someone else. I'm not stuck with the take-it-or-leave-it option Apple provides.

I just had to chuckle about the old 1984 Apple commercial with the guy throwing the hammer at the monitor of Big Brother to try to wake up the Drones. Ironic how a lot of Apple fans have turned into those same drones. biggrin.gif
Superguy25 is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 01:17 PM
Member
 
bbydon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The iPhone not disruptive....lol it miniaturized a computer, and put it in your pocket.
bbydon is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 01:23 PM
Member
 
aridneptune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbydon View Post

Apple's update cycles are too long thats why the computers seem overpriced. When they are first released they are right in line for the same spec computer from Dell or HP. But because Apple doesn't update frequently or discount they get stuck with the "overpriced" label.

Please - this is laughable. HP / Lenovo / Dell et. al. are very much cheaper than Apple. Just look at the companies' margins - 1-3% for the mass-market brands, 40+% on Macs from Apple. There's no way you accomplish this unless you mark up to have the pretty logo. The specs on the computers are mediocre at best.

That being said, the iOS ecosystem has been disruptive and did most certainly push the envelope in popularizing the smartphone. But in PCs - Apple's an also-ran, always has been, and always will be unless they price to the mass market. But they've been happy being the Rolls Royce of computers. Except you don't see many Rolls Royces around.
aridneptune is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 02:09 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's funny reading many of these comments, which have obviously (and I suppose, predictably) turned into a love/hate Apple rather than whether Apple could/would ever release an actual TV, and if so, what would it be?

I've been thinking about my own posts, and I think I've come to a conclusion. Some upthread have theorized that Apple's products are often overly-expensive, technologically behind the competition and basically created for drones who don't know enough about the other options in the various markets.

My conclusion is this: Shouldn't the goal of a company be customer satisfaction? I mean seriously, isn't that the ultimate goal in business? If so, does it trump revenue and income? Does it trump how large a company is and how many people it employs? I think we can all agree that, for the most part, customer satisfaction and growth/revenue/profits go somewhat hand in hand. But not always; I'm sure we all may be able to cite companies which seemingly do well regardless of mediocre customer satisfaction ratings.

Interestingly, Apple has achieved all of those things and still has many, many detractors. It's customer satisfaction ratings have ruled all sectors for year after year after year. It is the world's most valuable company. It makes the lion's share of the profits generated by any sector in which it plays a role. So, it seems obvious that a large, large (and growing) amount of people are supporters of the company.

And I think this all boils down to technology being able to enrich the lives of humans. I think Jobs got this concept far more than anyone else of his generation. He understood that tech specs, theoretical advantages and even price points will ultimately give way to enriching lives. Some of the posts upthread point to the "non-innovative" offerings from Apple; I obviously think they miss the point of Apple, and they obviously feel that I miss the point of Samsung, MS, Sony, LG, Palm, etc etc. I value their right to their opinions. I doubt I'll be coming around to their thinking anytime soon, but I do believe that dialog is good.

Back to my original supposition...the iPad came out of the box aggressively priced and ready to blow an untapped market wide open. As the article reference in the OP pointed out, Sony has set the stage with reasonable 4K offerings. Will Apple move in to steal the thunder?

PS. It will be hard for me to ever give up my HX850! That TV is just soooooo good!
johnnyvn is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 05-14-2013, 02:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
johnnyvn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
By the way, I suppose that, for some of you, we should look to Google for innovation? Is this what you're talking about?

Scroll down the page and play the video. This Google Glass thing is pretty amazing...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/5/4302244/google-glass-awkward-interactions-parodied-saturday-night-live
johnnyvn is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 05-15-2013, 05:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
If your measurement of quality comes solely from a company's customer satisfaction ranking, then good for you. But, customer satisfaction ratings are only worth so much. If your needs are met with an iPhone then that's perfectly fine. Just don't go waving it in someone else's face stating that it's the best because it's number one in customer satisfaction. You would get laughed at every time.

I don't have a problem with Apple products but it does bother me when people place all Apple anything on a pedestal. It bothers me when someone does that with any company, its just more common with Apple. People get so emotionally invested in products they spend money on that they'll fight to the death to defend their decision. Rather than be open-minded and allow themselves to truly enjoy the innovative products from other companies, they praise their favorite company and drag any competitor's products through the mud. It's silly.

Back to the original topic. I don't think anyone believes Apple would even try to jump into the TV market. It just wouldn't work out well for them. This isn't an "untapped market" and the price Apple would have to set it's TV at to retain it's "high-end" persona would drive the vast majority of customers away.

Louquid is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 05-15-2013, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Back to the original topic. I don't think anyone believes Apple would even try to jump into the TV market. It just wouldn't work out well for them. This isn't an "untapped market" and the price Apple would have to set it's TV at to retain it's "high-end" persona would drive the vast majority of customers away.
Yeah, that. Know anyone with a Bose TV?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Just as big an idea thief as)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
olyteddy is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off