Could Apple really carve out a space in the TV market? - Page 2

If Apple could do all the above, then why does it need to be a TV? Instead, why not create a set-top box to rule all set-top boxes, and a monitor-only style TV? They could still build a fancy looking TV, just with a separate box for the brains.

This approach would accomplish two big objectives:

1. For the Apple TV itself, much easier to be a thinner device. Also, using some sort of wireless HDMI, would enable a TV that only needs power, no other physical cords going into it. After all, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of a slick looking TV built by Apple if it has HDMI, component, antenna cords going into it?

2. By building a separate box, their target market is everyone with an HDTV, not just those looking to buy a new TV. That's a huge difference no matter how you slice it. It's another hook into the Apple ecosystem, but still leaves room for the Apple TV itself to be a separate platform altogether (i.e., 4K display, high-quality camera, etc.).

We can soothsay as to it's technology and place in the market, but keep in mind that the bar is significantly raised for an apple tv by three basic parameters:
1. hypermcompetition in the FP space and a
2. product entry price likely 5 to 10 fold higher than their two mot successful products (the iphone and ipad).
3. Unlike iphones and ipads, tv viewing remains a relatively passive endeavor in that human interaction is some what limited. What i mean by that is, apple had great corners to cut in a smart interface with an iphone relative to a competing smartphone in that a clever interface immediately benefits a device that is used actively.

I own numerous ipads, my wife is on her fourth generation of an iphoene, and we have apple tvs in our home, but there will be a lot of intertia (and av snobbery) to abandon a 64" plasma for a 55" led with a popular logo on it.

I can't wait to see the next Occupy Wall Street rally with all these 'downtrodden' students lugging these $3k TV's around. OR the next time I go into Starbucks and see some triple-nose-pierced douche writing his "script" on one of these.

I know I sound bitter. Perhaps I am. But I 100% seriously think Apple will absolutely destroy the competition in the TV market with this thing. How can they not? Look at their competition! Look at the current management of the big electronics makers! I think only Samsung (and only very recently Panasonic) realized that the trick to selling electronics is only partially about functionality and a LOT to do about aesthetics. It's sad but true. People like things that look good.

Apple has absolutely 100% gotten that concept down pat and that's why they win. They win in electronics and their executives live in gold money palaces whilst Sony / Pioneer / Nokia / Hitachi / Toshiba / etc. etc. are hemorrhaging money and employees left and right. I mean look at the 'flagship' Vizio TV's with their hideous silver sound bars on the front? Look at the Sony whose TV arm used to BE the TV industry and is now a smouldering ruin? What, did you guys pull out of retirement the design team of the 96 Ford Taurus for these things? And don't even get me started on the engineering design teams of Samsung / Panasonic FLAGSHIP plasmas who thought in their infinite wisdom to make their TV's have such ridiculously noticeable brightness pops on the supposed best BLACK producing panels in the free world. Only under threat of class action lawsuits and avsforum local 'zzoyd's ability to code logic board fimware did we even see a fix for it?!?!?

Look at the flagship cell phones before the iphone! The Nokia E70 was hands down the best functioning cell phone for tech / IT people in its day but the iPhone absolutely destroys it in sales. Why? Because it looks weird. Show me a programmer who says he/she can type faster on an iphone keyboard than a tactile responding keyboard like the e70 or the blackberry and I'll show you a liar.

Just think, every Starbucks , every new-age store / spa / nightclub in the world will be lining up to get one on release day to show how trendy their place is? OMG my TV can play angry birds!>!?!? Take my wallet. I'll pay anything!

If I was Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, etc. etc. I'd be crapping bricks. Better call dibs on that Wal-mart end-aisle location for your future products because thats where y'all will be in a few years.

they key to apple making money on ipanel is the content side.

the hardware side is brutal. they just need to stay slightly ahead of the competition on the hardware (say 55" 4k), and they'll be able to charge more for it than any other manufacturer of the same device because of the apple badge. so they make money, not a ton, on the hardware side, as opposed to most japanese display mnfrgs, and then revolutionize how content is available to consumers, from apple only, and how it can be bought.

that is where they will make a killing.

Apple could easily succeed in the TV business. They steal the best ideas from anyone and put their spin and polish on them and then Ala-Ka-Zam! that product, however limited and mediocre, becomes a printing press for money...

I think you hit the nail right on the head with this. If Apple can figure out and get content providers in bed with them as they did with iTunes then they will really change the home media/tv market.

Actually, they do fantastically on iPhone and iPad margins because they have the best supply chain of any company on earth.

I agree that's part of the issue (the other big part is integration with all the other home theater components as I've noted above). But what you've described is some sort of univerals IPTV solution. I fully agree that would be the be all / end all solution (assuming they get access rights, which is no easy matter), but even then there is still the issue of enough bandwidth and and monthly caps.

Plus, if they try to differentiate themselves with a 4K "retina" TV, then that's only going to exacerbate the issue if they eventually try to get 4K content.

The only way I can think of that Steve Jobs "cracked" it is if he came up with either A) a satellite based high-speed internet service (to use primarily for TV) or B) some unbelievable compression scheme to allow multiple HD or even 4K streams using current internet speeds.

I've yet to see any kind of proposed solution to the bandwidth issue as otherwise all this talk of unlimited content apart from cable/satellite just won't work.

So Apple which has no background in the AV industry will whip up a hurricane and blow away all the competition. Sure.

As one person said earlier, while Apple has locked up the mobile crowd, the home theater is a totally different marketplace.

Funny, I remember people making exactly the same remark about the mobile phone industry before the iPhone shipped.

SC

While Apple deserves the kudos for getting to the place they are at in that marketplace, its still very much a cutthroat business where its either evolve or die.

Eventually Apple wants to get to the knowledge navigator where your device is intelligent and can determine your needs when you interact with it. I don't see either iPhone or iPad at that level yet by a long shot. Neither is latest iMac running Lion or soon Mountain Lion. Siri is at this point in time just a gimmick, hopefully it will evolve, but its handicapped by computation power of current devices and lack of universal internet access for most areas that would allow your device to be a client where most of the processing happens in the cloud.

All this talk about Apple changing the world by coming out with a HDTV is still conjecture.

You do get that Apple is the most valuable company in the world, right?

This isn't a bunch of pikers just dabbling around.

Exactly. And the music industry before that. Not bad for a "computer company."

You're probably right that achieving this anytime soonwill be a challenge but I think it is their goal. Creating another TV just for the sake of creating it won't get them to where they want to go. But creating a new way of viewing content similar to what they did with down streaming audio and thereby almost eliminating the need for a transfer mediums [such as a disk] and middle men [a B&M shop] would be something that no one esle has and it fits their history and business model - It would be nice if they could do it using OLED and 4k rather than LCD but what the hey?

Apple is excellent about meeting the needs of the layperson. If they can, which they usually do, then I think they'll be successful. The "Smart" interfaces built into the majority of HDTVs are disjointed, sluggish, and confusing at best. To eschew even dealing with them, I have two Apple TVs myself. Liked mentioned previously, the trick here is content, and Apple is not known for having a great relationship with networks/studios. A 4K "Retina Cinema LED" Display is a great idea since the iPhone/iPad Retina screens are wonderful, not to mention wildly popular. I don't think, however, that 4K streams are even a possibility with the majority of the populations' internet service...bringing you back to the issue of content, and how to get it.


As far as integration with other A/V components different manufacturers, I think that's going to be a long-shot. I think Apple's best bet here is to pair a theoretical display to an AirPlay Soundbar or Airplay Home Theater, along with an Apple-branded optical disc player of some sorts.

The question is not in Apple's ability to make a successful TV, rather a successful ecosystem for said TV. An ecosystem that relies on content that Apple doesn't really hold power over.

reads like we're all arguing for an iPanel. In essence - a great big OLED iPad that can also serve as TV, DVR, and streamer - all rolled into one. Assuming this is something we wouldn't expect for a few years, I would still hold out for a 4k video processor built in. A couple of other things: If anyone can pull this off, it's probably Apple. Secondly, the time for them to do it is ripe right now but it won't stay that way always.

Well yes, but the iPhone is in its, what 5th generation? but its sales hasn't slow down in any noticeable amount that anybody is worry its future.

For sure, Apple have had its dubs, but one school of thought says Apple doesn't enter a market just to be "another" vendor, their intend is to disrupt the industry, and that's exciting indeed.


According to the Issacson's book, to him "cracked it" means a new, easy to use interface. As we all know, a complicated, currently available clicker interface is contrary to Apple's ethos.

To me, and already mentioned here in several other replies, yes better hardware, but the other 1/2 of the key is CONTENTS. Before iTunes, remember the music content providers were afraid of distributing their contents digitally, Steve Jobs, with his mercurial personality CONVINCED them to go along. This is the other 1/2, Apple has to convince the video providers to play the game, and if any company has the cache, it's certainly Apple.


It is like Obama wining the presidency. Even if you don't agree with his politics, the fact that a black man, who not long ago was a slave of this country, is now the most powerful citizen, immediately has a positive effect on the American ideal.

Lots of Apple haters say they never buy an Apple product, it doesn't have a keyboard, it's too small, doesn't do Flash, blah-blah-blah. I ask you, if the iPhone never existed, will anyone think we would have a cool gesture interface? would we have thousands of apps? Would we have super-scratch resistant gorilla glass? (there is a very interesting story how Steve Jobs convinced the CEO of Corning to supply the glass to Apple)

I can't afford a $2,000 TV as somebody reportedly says what the new Apple TV will cost, but I certainly will welcome the new hardware interface (which everybody will copy on short order) and a unified way to obtain contents, which now one has to fire up disparate applications, boxes to access, too painful.

So I say, Apple bring it on

But if I need to buy a TV today, I would buy, but perhaps not yet the time to upgrade if your current TV works fine.

Are you kidding me? The iPad can't be beaten on price and features by any other tablet? Please...

Also, another. Are you kidding me? The $199 phone that is heavily subsidized by each WSP and of which all pay hefty royalties to Apple to carry? So much so that each and every one loses so money on that phone that each charge for draconian data plans to make up the cost?

My Apple zombie detector is ringing like crazy. I get the feeling that if Apple made toilet paper and convinced you that it was better than Charmin at 3 times the price, you would happily lap that up.

Everybody here realizes that the content service will sell the apple TV. For this you would need modern world internet connection. Sadly the US is quite behind everybody in this regard. In the other advanced countries 100mb/s is the standard and I have seen as much as 1gb/s.
Having good optical net and well designed player/software is the future and lets hope Apple gets it and will stimulate ISPs to improve and upgrade to match.

I'm with you I REFUSE to buy anything that is white and has an Apple emblem... We should boycott them because everything they've made in the past has been revolutionary, left the competition with their mouths hanging open, has an excellent track record of reliability, knowledgable AMERICAN customer support reps on every corner in Apple stores, outsources as little as possible (see comment about customer service), and is making the first entrance into high def TVs since they came out and will probably drive down the prices of "lesser" TVs, not to mention they network with each other seamlessly....oh, wait...I'd be foolish/shortsighted not buy into a company that did all that. Man, I just wish they'd start making car audio...that sector is a friggin' jigsaw puzzle!

Please, just buy one Apple product and use it for a while, then try to go back to whatever you used before...it would make even the biggest PC-Android fan sick. I've taken the PC/MAC challenge...bring on the new products if it makes the competition better.

Your post is full of your incredulity and straw men arguments, neither of which are evidence of anything.

What does the market cap have to do with TV's? A high market cap means they have a lot of shareholders. Walmart is the worlds biggest retailer but that doesn't mean they sell the best stuff.


When they start making their products(other than the iPhone glass) in the US I might consider buying one to justify their high prices. As for customer service, I have never called customer service for any electronics I have bought because I can read a manual and if I need an answer I Google it.

If you want to buy an overpriced status symbol then more power to you, I'm out and hope everyone has a great weekend.

It doesn't take much to revolutionize the tv market.

A tv that is a dvr(no fee) syncs with your computer ,mobile device, tablet. The tv would sync with other smart tvs to stream dvr recording. No extra crap you need to buy, it just works. Sold!

That's what google tv should have been. I would have bought one if it had a satellite card and or a cable card. Even if the google tv worked as a sync box for a dummy tv to stream dvr stuff off the smart tv i would have gotten two. It's such an easy thing to get right, why can't they do it?

Yes, but Apple will not be able to push around the TV and movie studios like the music industry. The music industry got caught lagging in the transition to digital download as internet speeds increased. Battling heavy piracy and falling physical media sales, they were easy targets. Apple offered easy simple distribution with protection of content and eventually all of them got on board. With TV and movie studios the pockets are much deeper, they already have multiple distribution avenues and internet speeds are still not quite there to replace their 720p or 1080p source material. They do not want Apple controlling the price of their content, even if they give up the short term profit increase it would generate.

It's a fad. Apple will fade. They are not a MFG company. Eventually price will get them.

You know, people have been predicting the death of Apple pretty much since 1976. What's your date, so I can mark it on my calendar?

Plus, somehow they've managed to turn profitable quarter after profitable quarter in the middle of the worst recessions we've seen in decades. All this while their traditional competitors have struggled to not lose money. Do you attribute this all to slick marketing designed to separate us simpletons with our money? If so, then you have a poor understanding of what Apple does.

Apple's rise from near death is attributable to two things. Chinese slave labor and Job's ego. He always was ready to gamble on the next great thing if he believed in it. Even if it cost the company hundreds of millions (Apple Lisa) or if it made billions (Ipod, Iphone). Now everyone is moving manufacturing over to the Chinese and Jobs is dead. They are not going away anytime soon, but their years at the top definitely have an expiration date.

Wow you sound like an apple fanboy.

I own an iphone and love it.

But lets be honest... Apple is not a great as the fanboys pretend and I have no faith in a TV product from them becoming industry standard the way ipod or iphone did.

No, I'm not.

First of all, there is no royalty. Second of all, all smartphones are heavily subsidized. Apple gets a higher price from carriers than even Samsung because their customers want iPhones. But let's not pretend (a) that Apple couldn't charge the same or less than Samsung (b) Apple doesn't have the lowest build cost. And let's stop making up ridiculous crap.

I get the feeling you have absolutely no knowledge of how Apple makes money and you are an Apple hater. But I really don't care. Apple is the most profitable company on earth and in its industry. It charges slightly premium prices for its computers -- because it can -- and slightly premium prices (to carriers) for its phones. But its pricing for tablets and end-user phone pricing is competitive with everyone else -- and really, if the world actually catches up with iPad let us know -- because it is the most efficient buyer of components, builder of devices and turner of inventory on earth. All of this would translate to TV.

Last I checked, Samsung's better 55" TVs run $1700-2700 at Best Buy. Presumably, these are the ones where they make money. It's at the $1000-1400 level in that size where profits are probably non-existent.

If Apple did, in fact, sell a $2000 TV through primarily their own retail stores and web site -- which is how they sell most of their iPads and computers by the way -- they would likely be able to make nearly 30% margins on the product. If the TV was close to $2500 (and this feels more likely), it would still be lower priced than a top of the line Samsung.

This would, of course, destroy the false claims of you and others that Apple has some sort of premium prices that no one else has. And the margins would likely be on the order of 40-50%.

That said, I would be less bullish on selling 5 million at $2500 than I would be at $2000.