PDA

View Full Version : Apple Focusing on Existing Hardware Lines?




MacRumors
Feb 22, 2007, 10:21 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Recent comments (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2511) to Prudential analysts indicate that Apple will be focusing on their existing product lines, rather than breaking into any "new categories":

In the meantime, Apple said it "doesn’t expect to broadly proliferate into any new categories for a while," and will instead focus on its four existing product categories in Macs, iPods, iPhone and Apple TV.

This may dash some hopes of those hoping that Apple would build the iPhone technologies into a tablet form factor. Even so, Apple could easily cross this technology into future iPods and stay true to this statement.



twoodcc
Feb 22, 2007, 10:24 AM
well i would love new products, but as long as they keep their current lineups refreshed....i'm happy

Chaszmyr
Feb 22, 2007, 10:25 AM
Saying they will focus on Macs doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of introducing new Macs... Possibly including ultra portables or tablets.

illitrate23
Feb 22, 2007, 10:28 AM
i was going to say the same thing - if they do release a tablet, it'll be under the Mac product line surely, or it'll be a type of Mac Book

still, it makes sense that they'd want to concentrate and grow the AppleTV and iPhone products before tackling other product lines

Bye Bye Baby
Feb 22, 2007, 10:28 AM
Yeah- I think the same thing. It would be good for Apple to consolidate

HawaiiMacAddict
Feb 22, 2007, 10:29 AM
so an "iPhone-less" video iPod is not necessarily out of the question, then. :D At least, that's what I'd like to see, albeit with a much larger storage capacity. I currently have a 30GB 5G iPod and would love to replace it with either a 30GB iPhone or 30GB "iPhone-less" video iPod :D

:apple: HawaiiMacAddict

TC2COOL
Feb 22, 2007, 10:30 AM
That doesn't exclude a touch screen iPod or a touch screen Mac. Right???

Aniej
Feb 22, 2007, 10:32 AM
Thank g-d, keep focussing on core technologies and utilize those to further promote the company. Then, when appropriate evaluate new arenas, that's how to keep the balance sheets looking pretty and the stock where/above its current mark.

Guirgi
Feb 22, 2007, 10:34 AM
Good news! I mirror Leo Laporte's concerns that Apple might be moving more into consumer electronics and away from the "computer" aspect of things. It'd be disasterous for Apple to spread itself too then. Repeat after me: "Quality over quantity." Repeat as needed.

bdj21ya
Feb 22, 2007, 10:36 AM
so an "iPhone-less" video iPod is not necessarily out of the question, then. :D At least, that's what I'd like to see, albeit with a much larger storage capacity. I currently have a 30GB 5G iPod and would love to replace it with either a 30GB iPhone or 30GB "iPhone-less" video iPod :D

:apple: HawaiiMacAddict

IMO there is a 100% chance of Apple releasing a widescreen touch iPod this year, but they will not do so until after the early adopters have all gone with the iPhone (no reason to compete with your newest flagship product). I'd guess we'll see the iPod in October or November in time for holiday sales.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Feb 22, 2007, 10:45 AM
Darn, no ?Box 360's any time soon?

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 10:45 AM
A new user interface for a computer is not a new product line in the sense that a phone, a cordless drill or a toaster is.

I think Prudential's statement was more focused on identifying Apple's strategic direction in broad product categories, relative to their branding/positioning objectives as reflected by the name change from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.

A multitouch computer is still a computer. Apple, Inc. still makes computers.

gugy
Feb 22, 2007, 10:48 AM
IMO there is a 100% chance of Apple releasing a widescreen touch iPod this year, but they will not do so until after the early adopters have all gone with the iPhone (no reason to compete with your newest flagship product). I'd guess we'll see the iPod in October or November in time for holiday sales.


I hope so. I am just tired of waiting. I wish last october we had the widescreen ipod.
Anyway, I agree. It's going to happen this year. Now October seems so far away. The current iPod it's just so outdate after they announce the iPhone. I look forward to come by summer. we'll see.

840quadra
Feb 22, 2007, 10:54 AM
Existing ?

The iPhone and :apple:-TV are not shipping yet, so they really can't be considered existing products yet.

x86isslow
Feb 22, 2007, 11:00 AM
I think this just means "Don't expect Apple to start making toasters and microwaves anytime soon". They'll probably roll in the Multi Touch into their current computer lines, maybe not as a tablet, but something just as cool, knowing Apple.

Doctor Q
Feb 22, 2007, 11:01 AM
"Focusing on..." for how long? Until their next surprise announcement, of course. I don't think this report tells us much beyond "no big announcements for a month or two."

I doubt Apple is out of new ideas yet.

eggstone
Feb 22, 2007, 11:09 AM
Now everyone believes that touchscreen iPod(without phone) is coming sooner or later, and then...

Touchscreen iMacs! it'll still be under the category of Mac... :)

phillipjfry
Feb 22, 2007, 11:14 AM
"Focusing on..." for how long? Until their next surprise announcement, of course. I don't think this report tells us much beyond "no big announcements for a month or two."

I doubt Apple is out of new ideas yet.

Apple will have to release updates soon otherwise people are going to get tired of waiting (the non-Mac worshipers) and just go another direction. Now is a great time for Apple to release something. It's hard to pick up momentum from zero.

D34thPwny
Feb 22, 2007, 11:25 AM
Seems logical... The iPhone was a big 'un, maybe they need a break for a while ;)

TheBobcat
Feb 22, 2007, 11:27 AM
I hope they don't release touch screen computers. I'm obsessive compulsive about people touching computer screens. Like when they point at things on the screen and actually touch it and make contact, I totally freak out. God forbid someone touches my MBP or my LCD screen, I will kick their buttocks and then never allow them near my computer again. :mad:

Eh, but if it was a touch screen I guess I'd have to get used to it, or take pills.

Porchland
Feb 22, 2007, 11:36 AM
It says a lot about :apple:TV that Apple thinks it is one of their four major lines.

I am absolutely convinced that it is going to be a direct competitor to cable and satellite and that this time next year we'll be talking about market share in the cable/satellite/:apple:TV market.

Prediction: Later this year, Apple will broadcast an event that will be available live (or short-delayed) on iTunes and :apple:TV. It will probably be a music event. Season pass prices will drop on returning fall shows.

At Macworld '08 in January, Apple will announce (1) PPV movies in two tiers: $4.99 for new releases and $3.99 for catalog titles, and (2) a subscription package that will allow you to download 50 episodes a month of any TV shows in the store for $29.99 a month and $1.99 for each additional title.

After Macworld, we'll start seeing more deals for live programming like award shows, news, and sports programming.

Cover your nuts, Comcast. You're about to get kicked in the sack.

RodThePlod
Feb 22, 2007, 11:40 AM
I'm obsessive compulsive about people touching computer screens. Like when they point at things on the screen and actually touch it and make contact

Hahaha!! I'm exactly the same. I mean *why* do they have to actually touch it?
:)

The four main lines that Apple are now working with still leave a lot of flexibility for some surprises like touch screen/tablets though. Personally, I'm thinking that wide/touchscreen iPod will appear sooner rather than later.

RodC

Chupa Chupa
Feb 22, 2007, 11:43 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Recent comments (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2511) to Prudential analysts indicate that Apple will be focusing on their existing product lines, rather than breaking into any "new categories":


This may dash some hopes of those hoping that Apple would build the iPhone technologies into a tablet form factor. Even so, Apple could easily cross this technology into future iPods and stay true to this statement.


Why? Apple said it will focus on existing "product lines" NOT "products." There is nothing to say a tablet wouldn't fit into the MacBook line. Personally I don't see Apple making a tablet for other reasons, namely no real market. Maybe a subnote convertible, but I can't see a straight tablet.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 11:46 AM
Well this certainly doesn't rule out new-fangled macs to make us drool over. They can release as many advanced laptops, desktops, iPods and peripheral items and add better functionality to them without even creating new categories in their product lines. I'm glad they're staying focused on their present machinery, because broadening too much can have terribly negative effects on their most beloved products, namely the macs. But I guess this means I won't be getting that Apple iToaster I was hoping for. :(

And Porchland's statement is my wish. I'd love to be able to rent movies on iTunes. It would certainly give the ATV a big shot in the arm, especially when more studios jump on board, which would seriously give NetFlix and BlockBuster a run for its money. I just wish the studios would stop being such dillholes and lower the prices of their product. I can't even burn it to disc, why should I pay the same price as the DVD?

But with this expansion of iTunes people will be clamoring more for some kind of compromise for interoperability with other players. Apple could always partner up with the likes of Creative and Sandisk to make a deal, though I don't see that happening.

Thanatoast
Feb 22, 2007, 11:46 AM
I hope they don't release touch screen computers. I'm obsessive compulsive about people touching computer screens. Like when they point at things on the screen and actually touch it and make contact, I totally freak out. God forbid someone touches my MBP or my LCD screen, I will kick their buttocks and then never allow them near my computer again. :mad:

Eh, but if it was a touch screen I guess I'd have to get used to it, or take pills.
It amazes me to this day that some people haven't developed the motor skills nor the cognitive ability to point at something without touching it with their grimy mitts. Pills, ahoy.

On topic, I find it interesting that they consider the :apple:tv to be an entire product line. The iPhone I can see as a "line", like the Macs and the iPods, but the :apple:tv? I wonder if they will be developing things we haven't even thought of yet, like how they started with one 5 gig iPod and built out. What could they add/subtract/miniaturize?

psychofreak
Feb 22, 2007, 11:47 AM
iPod fullscreen
Tablet portable
Mid-range tower

Not that I would buy the computers, but I would love to play with them at the Apple Store...

Doctor Q
Feb 22, 2007, 11:48 AM
Apple will have to release updates soon otherwise people are going to get tired of waiting (the non-Mac worshipers) and just go another direction. Now is a great time for Apple to release something. It's hard to pick up momentum from zero.This rumor is about (a lack of) brand new Apple hardware products. It doesn't address Mac or iPod updates. In fact, if Apple isn't working on new products, presumably they are spending their time on improvements to the current product line, making updates seem more likely.

I hope they don't release touch screen computers. I'm obsessive compulsive about people touching computer screens. Like when they point at things on the screen and actually touch it and make contact, I totally freak out. God forbid someone touches my MBP or my LCD screen, I will kick their buttocks and then never allow them near my computer again. :mad:Our People keep poking my screen discussion thread is for people like you.

foidulus
Feb 22, 2007, 11:48 AM
how about they actually, oh I don't know, UPDATE their current lines! We haven't seen a refresh of any of Apple's computers for 3 and a half months, and the mac mini is getting to be a joke. Come on Apple! AppleTV is all well and good, but for those of us who like your computers something new every once in a while would be nice.

jonharris200
Feb 22, 2007, 11:50 AM
"Focusing on..." for how long? Until their next surprise announcement, of course. I don't think this report tells us much beyond "no big announcements for a month or two."

One thing we can be sure of is there'll be no more big announcements until the next ... big announcement. :D

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 12:00 PM
Modbook pro! I wannit!

johnmcboston
Feb 22, 2007, 12:02 PM
I think this just means "Don't expect Apple to start making toasters and microwaves anytime soon".

hmmm. iToast. I can see it..

:-)

Houston
Feb 22, 2007, 12:08 PM
Apple is LONG overdue for upgrade to 8 processor MacPro. Everyone else has had one out for some time. They should release it NOW! It's been expected since November.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 12:09 PM
And I'd be first in line to buy the discounted quad :D

gugy
Feb 22, 2007, 12:12 PM
Apple is LONG overdue for upgrade to 8 processor MacPro. Everyone else has had one out for some time. They should release it NOW! It's been expected since November.

hint: Watch NAB closely. April 14.
Is either that or at WWDC.
Apple will wait Adobe release CS3, it seems end of March as the day, plus I would expect on the same timeframe to have Leopard here.
The fatest Mac ever(MacPro Octo-core) with native Adobe and the latest Apple OS. It seems to be the case, IMHO.

Stike
Feb 22, 2007, 12:13 PM
That means basically that we wont see any toasters from Apple, for the time being.

Evangelion
Feb 22, 2007, 12:30 PM
how about they actually, oh I don't know, UPDATE their current lines! We haven't seen a refresh of any of Apple's computers for 3 and a half months, and the mac mini is getting to be a joke. Come on Apple! AppleTV is all well and good, but for those of us who like your computers something new every once in a while would be nice.

Apple has been paying A LOT of attention to their computers. The problem is that you guys do not remember how it was back in PPC-era. You were lucky to get a measly few megahertz increase in clock-speed maybe once or twice a year. But now we have had nice increases in clock-speed, more RAM, new CPU's, entire architecture-switch, new features... And now we have people complaining that "it has been over three months since last upgrade!".

BenRoethig
Feb 22, 2007, 12:38 PM
Hopefully that doesn't exclude new models of the existing families. An HDTV with AppleTV built in would be nice. I really don't see the stand alone unit flying off of store shelves.

job
Feb 22, 2007, 12:45 PM
It says a lot about :apple:TV that Apple thinks it is one of their four major lines.

I am absolutely convinced that it is going to be a direct competitor to cable and satellite and that this time next year we'll be talking about market share in the cable/satellite/:apple:TV market.

Prediction: Later this year, Apple will broadcast an event that will be available live (or short-delayed) on iTunes and :apple:TV. It will probably be a music event. Season pass prices will drop on returning fall shows.

At Macworld '08 in January, Apple will announce (1) PPV movies in two tiers: $4.99 for new releases and $3.99 for catalog titles, (2) a subscription package that will allow you to download 50 episodes a month of any TV show in the store for $29.99 a month and $1.99 for each additional title.

After Macworld, we'll start seeing more deals for live programming like award shows, news, and sports programming.

Cover your nuts, Comcast. You're about to get kicked in the sack.

I'll admit, I'll be worried for Apple if they do try to go this route.

While it makes sense, I'm not so sure if the timing is right. Apple was able to revolutionize the music industry, first with the iPod and then with the iTunes Store. But Apple was only focusing on one industry at the time.

If Apple truly wants to compete with the major television providers while at the same time trying to change the cell phone market, I'm not so sure they can pull off both at the same time. Maybe if Apple focused on one industry and then focused on the other they might be able to do it, but I can't see how Apple is going to try to revolutionize two major tech markets simultaneously.

sishaw
Feb 22, 2007, 12:47 PM
hmmm. iToast. I can see it..

:-)

I think it would be nice to be able to toast bagels and burn DVDs in one nicely designed, convenient product.

Le Big Mac
Feb 22, 2007, 12:53 PM
Why is it that every time Apple says "we're not going to do X" within a few months they do X? They denied the iPhone and Apple TV for some time as well . . . .

johnmcboston
Feb 22, 2007, 12:57 PM
I think it would be nice to be able to toast bagels and burn DVDs in one nicely designed, convenient product.

As long as I could play music and watch videos whilst waiting for my bagels to get toasted, of course.

Porchland
Feb 22, 2007, 01:07 PM
I think it would be nice to be able to toast bagels and burn DVDs in one nicely designed, convenient product.

I have one of those, actually. It's called a PowerBook G4.

Just start burning the DVD, flip over the PowerBook, and lay the bagel directly over the processor.

:D

lazyrighteye
Feb 22, 2007, 01:12 PM
Good news! I mirror Leo Laporte's concerns that Apple might be moving more into consumer electronics and away from the "computer" aspect of things. It'd be disasterous for Apple to spread itself too then. Repeat after me: "Quality over quantity." Repeat as needed.

Quality over quantity.
Qual...

Ah heck, I agree.

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 01:12 PM
I'll admit, I'll be worried for Apple if they do try to go this route.

While it makes sense, I'm not so sure if the timing is right. Apple was able to revolutionize the music industry, first with the iPod and then with the iTunes Store. But Apple was only focusing on one industry at the time.

If Apple truly wants to compete with the major television providers while at the same time trying to change the cell phone market, I'm not so sure they can pull off both at the same time. Maybe if Apple focused on one industry and then focused on the other they might be able to do it, but I can't see how Apple is going to try to revolutionize two major tech markets simultaneously.

I think what Apple sees is the inevitable technological convergence on the horizon. As an extension of their "digital hub" strategy whereby they evangelized the concept of the computer as the central hub to which content-driven devices (e.g. digital camera, video camera, iPod, etc.) would connect to enhance functionality in both directions, Apple is cross-pollenating the market with iPhone and AppleTV... both are devices that communicate with iTunes (the "hub").

There may be several tactics at work here in the larger strategy:

1. Content captured with iPhone (photos, possibly video in the future) can be stored to iTunes and viewed in your living room via AppleTV.

2. Content viewed on AppleTV and stored by iTunes can be viewed on your iPhone.

The iPhone is basically the mobile equivalent of AppleTV... more so than the iPod ever was, chiefly because of the UI enhancements.

But there's even a third possibility:

3. iPhone as a wi-fi device could be configured to feed content directly to AppleTV, or to indirectly access other libraries on the network. In this way it could be a wi-fi remote control for AppleTV: Flip through your iPhone content OR network library using CoverFlow on the iPhone, and play through to AppleTV.

Granted, Apple may not have thought of this yet (I'd be surprised if they didn't) but it's only a software update away from allowing such functionality because iPhone and AppleTV have everything else needed from a technology standpoint to facilitate a Wi-Fi Remote concept.

EricNau
Feb 22, 2007, 01:15 PM
It says a lot about :apple:TV that Apple thinks it is one of their four major lines.

I am absolutely convinced that it is going to be a direct competitor to cable and satellite and that this time next year we'll be talking about market share in the cable/satellite/:apple:TV market.

Prediction: Later this year, Apple will broadcast an event that will be available live (or short-delayed) on iTunes and :apple:TV. It will probably be a music event. Season pass prices will drop on returning fall shows.

At Macworld '08 in January, Apple will announce (1) PPV movies in two tiers: $4.99 for new releases and $3.99 for catalog titles, (2) a subscription package that will allow you to download 50 episodes a month of any TV show in the store for $29.99 a month and $1.99 for each additional title.

After Macworld, we'll start seeing more deals for live programming like award shows, news, and sports programming.

Cover your nuts, Comcast. You're about to get kicked in the sack.Sorry, but that's not going to happen for a long, long, time. People like having their huge HD TVs with over 250 channels to chose from an any moment. :apple:tv essentially destroy that. It might work for singles who are busy working all day and don't have time for more than 1 or 2 TV shows a day, but for families, it's just is not feasible. ...Right now, :apple:tv is just a gimmick, and to be honest, I don't expect this product to take Apple anywhere.

The only way :apple:tv makes sense to me is if I were allowed to record TV on my Mac through my existing cable subscription, and stream it to my Television (similar to Windows Media Center, only better). That would actually be quite nice. ...But until Apple introduces this "true" Media Center, consider me totally unimpressed.

p0intblank
Feb 22, 2007, 01:22 PM
This is a good thing. New products are usually cool, but it's good to know that Apple won't leave out the most important product of all: the Mac

bob t'carpenter
Feb 22, 2007, 01:45 PM
I hope they concentrate on existing products for a while, because they haven't got them right yet. Moving from my rock solid iBook to a faster, brighter but highly unstable Macbook, which often fails to wake from sleep and has 3 times corrupted files while doing so has made me realise how flaky their move to intel was. Vista now has the edge for reliability and stability, and apple have some catching up to do

Bob

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 01:51 PM
People like having their huge HD TVs with over 250 channels to chose from an any moment. :apple:tv essentially destroy that.

Speak for yourself. I have an HDTV and I want a-la carte programming more than anything else right now. Do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to spend $90 a month just to get a handful of HDTV channels?

The cable/dish companies tier their programming so in order to get the 10 or so HDTV channels available they require you to sign up for basic, extended and digital first... bringing you around to $80-90 a month just so you can have the few channels of HD content you really want to watch.

Even if you're a family of five and you have three TV's let's say... you still can't watch 200 channels all at once... So you're paying for tons of channels that at any given time are completely useless to you. Given the crap programming that's out there, frankly, most of them are useless when you're watching them anyway! Nevermind commercial interruptions...

Sure, that $80-90 seems like a steal when you break it out over the number of channels you get, but again that's a false way of calculating your return. Instead, divide that $80-90 by the minutes of programming you actually watch in a month. Then subtract from that value the programs you don't watch completely... channel surfing 60 different programs in an hour cannot be worth 60, or even 30 whole programs. i.e. You wouldn't pay the same for one random minute of sixty different hour-long programs as you'd pay for one sixty minute program, would you?

Now also subtract the total number of minutes of commercial interruptions... You almost forgot this one didn't you? Easy to forget but even if you're not watching commercials intently, you're being robbed of your time while you wait for the program to resume or surf until you hit another program in progress. The value of the commercials is partly what subsidizes the cost of 200 plus channels of crap. So why shouldn't it be subtracted from your net gain or added to the actual valuation of the monthly cost to you for this service?

What I want is a-la carte programming... so I can buy the few shows I really want to watch, and watch them whenever I feel like it... rather than surfing through 200 channels of garbage until something interesting comes on.

Recent consumer surveys show that the public wants this more than just about any other type of media service. Analysts also expect to see the video download business to grow from the current $111 million market it is today to $400 million in 2007 and $4 BILLION by 2011. Did you catch that? 1000 percent growth in five years... or an average 200% per year!

AppleTV is expected to be a key contributor to this growth in the same way that iPod has skyrocketed music download purchases.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One great choice is better than many mediocre choices. Being able to pick the few programs I want is better than being forced to pay for a stream of hundreds if not thousands of programs I don't want, don't need and don't watch.

Most consumers agree with this and their purchasing habits don't yet reflect it because viable, easy-to-use systems for internet distribution and content streaming direct to your TV are only now emerging. There are many hacky alternatives to get a-la carte programming today but most of them introduce more complications than they eliminate.

AppleTV is one huge step toward fixing this and making the browsing, purchasing, delivery and exhibition of the internet-based model FAR more convenient than conventional cable and satellite TV.

The most critical component to the success of this distribution model is the successful, uncluttered, EASY bridging of the computer/network with the television with a user interface that's more convenient than existing menuing systems for DVR's and media center type configurations.

This is why AppleTV is the "killer app" of 2007.

steve_hill4
Feb 22, 2007, 01:54 PM
I'd be mighty tempted by the MacSlab™, but I don't want to splash out on what would be more like toys to me.

I would like to see a greater range of iPhones, (2Q 2008 I think), an Apple Mid tower, 15 and or 17" MacBooks and 13" or less MacBook pros, larger capacity widescreen iPods and lots of multi touch devices. If you consider a trackpad as multi touch, two fingered scrolling and now clicking is already here. I think Apple have a lot more in the pipeline than they have let on. By saying current product lines, they would want people to think updated specs, not new models.

surferfromuk
Feb 22, 2007, 02:02 PM
It's an absolute no-brainer that Apple will release an 80Gig widescreen Ipod on the Iphone platform with a ton of core animation and wi-fi -> Itunes integration and Apple TV streaming...

I bet it's sat waiting now - they just don't want to steal the thunder from the Iphone by letting it out just yet...


AND....when is Apple actually going to release an ACTUAL TV with all this streaming crap inside it...surely less than 18months away now...that's another no-brainer

Telp
Feb 22, 2007, 02:10 PM
Do you think theres gunna be a "major" hardware uptdate by leopard?

tkn
Feb 22, 2007, 02:10 PM
Seems logical... The iPhone was a big 'un, maybe they need a break for a while ;)

Is anyone really going to be choosing between an 8GB iPhone and a 100GB+ iPod Video. To my mind they don't overlap at all despite a possible physical resemblance.

Porchland
Feb 22, 2007, 02:10 PM
Sorry, but that's not going to happen for a long, long, time. People like having their huge HD TVs with over 250 channels to chose from an any moment. :apple:tv essentially destroy that. It might work for singles who are busy working all day and don't have time for more than 1 or 2 TV shows a day, but for families, it's just is not feasible. ...Right now, :apple:tv is just a gimmick, and to be honest, I don't expect this product to take Apple anywhere.

Apple doesn't have to get huge market share for this deal to work and for the cable/satellite carriers to suffer. The customers that Apple takes would be the good ones: high-income households that buy a lot of value-added features like HD.

Nobody watches 250 channels, and a fully on-demand service would actually be better than cable. Instead of 250 channels with nothing on, it would be one service with everything on. It would be like a giant DVR loaded up with everything you want to watch.

The only way :apple:tv makes sense to me is if I were allowed to record TV on my Mac through my existing cable subscription, and stream it to my Television (similar to Windows Media Center, only better). That would actually be quite nice. ...But until Apple introduces this "true" Media Center, consider me totally unimpressed.

Apple could have allowed DVR functionality on either the Mac mini or :apple:TV and elected not to. Apple is NOT going to go the DVR route unless they completely change the direction they're headed in right now. If you have a subscription plan with access to everything, you'll never need to DVR anything. You'll just select that show and watch it.

gugy
Feb 22, 2007, 02:20 PM
AND....when is Apple actually going to release an ACTUAL TV with all this streaming crap inside it...surely less than 18months away now...that's another no-brainer

Apple won't make a TV. Period.
There's no reason for it. That's why they have :apple: TV.

tkn
Feb 22, 2007, 02:22 PM
Nobody watches 250 channels, and a fully on-demand service would actually be better than cable. Instead of 250 channels with nothing on, it would be one service with everything on.

Apple could have allowed DVR functionality on either the Mac mini or :apple:TV and elected not to. Apple is NOT going to go the DVR route unless they completely change the direction they're headed in right now. If you have a subscription plan with access to everything, you'll never need to DVR anything. You'll just select that show and watch it.[/QUOTE]

They might be able to get people to switch off cable, but frankly it is not very cost competitive right now. Right now I get to watch six+ shows a week plus maybe a couple of movies a week. I watch tennis when there is an Open and maybe a bit of soccer occasionally.

So what does iTunes let me do, movies cost how much? no matter how old they are. Can I watch soccer? What about tennis live? What about the Olympics? Then take my six shows a week (and that is pretty reasonable, about an hour of TV a night..). That is like $12 a week so $48 a month. And that doesn't count the occasional Antiques Roadshow, History Channel show, or whatever else catches my fancy. Is there Globe Trekker on there?

I am sure a lot of this stuff is coming, but the costs are too high right now to replace cable.

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 02:25 PM
IMO there is a 100% chance of Apple releasing a widescreen touch iPod this year, but they will not do so until after the early adopters have all gone with the iPhone (no reason to compete with your newest flagship product).I don't know if I agee with this line of thought. In my opinion, it makes more sense to bring out the 6G Widescreen Touchscreen iPod now.

Why?

If I'm planning on buying an iPhone in June, I'm gonna buy. I've got money for an expensive phone and I've got money for an expensive plan. If I'm buying $599 phone and agreeing to $1800 2 year contract (that's $75 x 24 mo), I'm agreeing to be ready to spend almost $2500 in the next 2 years.

Now if Apple releases the 6G iPod for $299-399, it's quite possible (since I've got cash) to go ahead and get used to the "experience" of the touchscreen technology that I'll have in 3-4 months. At which time, I either keep both units or I can decide to give that one away. It's an impulse move but it's "only" an extra $299-399, on top of the $2500 commitment their bracing for. And it's an extra $299-399 in Apple's pocket.

If the 6G iPod comes out AFTER the iPhone, those iPhone owners would most surely not cough up the additional money. They have their slick iPod experience in their phone and the wallet is shut.

If I'm NOT buying an iPhone in June, why not make a big splash in the 2nd quarter and get those not buying in the 3rd to at least throw money in the till now. It's $299-399 in Apple's pocket now.

I say, bring on the 6G iPod now, 'cause I ain't buying an iPhone in June!

iW00t
Feb 22, 2007, 02:27 PM
hint: Watch NAB closely. April 14.
Is either that or at WWDC.
Apple will wait Adobe release CS3, it seems end of March as the day, plus I would expect on the same timeframe to have Leopard here.
The fatest Mac ever(MacPro Octo-core) with native Adobe and the latest Apple OS. It seems to be the case, IMHO.

Apple - adapting technology 1/2 way through the cycle after everyone else.

Typical.

Is there any reason why the current crop of Mac Pros aren't octo core by now? Apple didn't make enough money out of the old ones? They ordered too many from the factories and now they couldn't sell? Do we as consumers care?

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 02:30 PM
It's an absolute no-brainer that Apple will release an 80Gig widescreen Ipod on the Iphone platform with a ton of core animation and wi-fi -> Itunes integration and Apple TV streaming...

I bet it's sat waiting now - they just don't want to steal the thunder from the Iphone by letting it out just yet...


AND....when is Apple actually going to release an ACTUAL TV with all this streaming crap inside it...surely less than 18months away now...that's another no-brainer

Since they don't actually make the liquid crystal screens in their displays, the real no-brainer here is that it isn't as much of a cash cow for them to do this... Because they'll have to pay a considerable chunk to a third-party vendor for the screens in TV's that get re-badged as Apple products.

Other companies might go for this by dropping their retail and wholesale margins. But Apple generally maintains larger profit margins. Part of this is a brand positioning strategy. Apple intentionally keeps their price points high to correlate with the brand value... that they are a premium product.

To wit... the Lexus is nothing more than a re-badged Toyota with some additional, cheaply manufactured bells and whistles. But they won't brand it as a Toyota in the United States because affluent people are not inclined to pay upwards of $55,000 for a Toyota-branded vehicle.

Furthermore, additional compromises in materials, manufacturing and customer service would need to be made in order to keep costs down on a product that depends hugely on third-party hardware.

So, to compete in the TV market Apple would have to resort to operations management and marketing practices that would dilute the value of their brand and risk alienating their core customers.

The displays they make now are strategic because they tie directly to usability of products Apple makes. But note that they make premium displays with high industrial design factors, SWOP-certified LCD's, and they charge an assload for them. The ONLY displays they make are aimed largely at Apple's professional customers (e.g. music, film, prepress industries, etc.) with a nice side niche of their more affluent consumers. Given that the 30 inch Cinema HD monitor costs over $2000... Where do you suppose a 40 inch Apple HDTV with hard drive and CPU for an AppleTV-type UI is going to be priced?

A TV really isn't in their future... at least not without some serious re-tooling of the concept. If we redefine what a TV is, then you might actually have something. But really... Why do this at all when you can sell an Apple display AND a Mac... two high-quality, high-margin products instead of one mediocre-quality, low-margin product?

dernhelm
Feb 22, 2007, 02:37 PM
Existing ?

The iPhone and :apple:-TV are not shipping yet, so they really can't be considered existing products yet.

Why not? They exist don't they? Or are you from some universe where iShip therefore iAm?
;)

johnmcboston
Feb 22, 2007, 02:49 PM
It's an absolute no-brainer that Apple will release an 80Gig widescreen Ipod on the Iphone platform

hmmm. I can see that, but I hope there's always a click-wheel ipod lying around. I can feel the wheel in a jacket pocket or such. With an iphone-style ipod, if you had to look at the thing every time you had to change volumes or skip a song I'd go mad. :-)

bayportbob
Feb 22, 2007, 02:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Recent comments (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2511) to Prudential analysts indicate that Apple will be focusing on their existing product lines, rather than breaking into any "new categories":


This may dash some hopes of those hoping that Apple would build the iPhone technologies into a tablet form factor. Even so, Apple could easily cross this technology into future iPods and stay true to this statement.

the term used here is macs, which covers three lines of desktops and two lines of notebooks by last count. without stretching things in this context apple could add a tablet or iPod or anything else that would fit in this very broad description of their product line.

Telp
Feb 22, 2007, 02:53 PM
It's an absolute no-brainer that Apple will release an 80Gig widescreen Ipod on the Iphone platform with a ton of core animation and wi-fi -> Itunes integration and Apple TV streaming...


apple could wait for a little and make it look better to just go for the iphone to boost iphone sales for a little wile.

guzhogi
Feb 22, 2007, 02:58 PM
the term used here is macs, which covers three lines of desktops and two lines of notebooks by last count. without stretching things in this context apple could add a tablet or iPod or anything else that would fit in this very broad description of their product line.

Don't forget the xServe line! But then again, the xServe probably isn't for the average consumer.

theheadguy
Feb 22, 2007, 03:12 PM
Existing ?

The iPhone and :apple:-TV are not shipping yet, so they really can't be considered existing products yet.
They exist. They just haven't shipped.

Poff
Feb 22, 2007, 03:45 PM
they've doubled from 2 to 4 product lines lately. This is smart of them so they can remain focused (and consumers can remain focused) on what they're doing. If you expand too fast, you might get burnt.

Cult Follower
Feb 22, 2007, 03:49 PM
I think i will work out better, so they can focus on making better versions of there current products. they're a little behind on the iPod. But I think after leopard is released they are gonna kick out some great product revisions to take advantage of Leopard's features (core animation and other unannounced).

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 03:57 PM
hmmm. I can see that, but I hope there's always a click-wheel ipod lying around. I can feel the wheel in a jacket pocket or such. With an iphone-style ipod, if you had to look at the thing every time you had to change volumes or skip a song I'd go mad. :-)

I was thinking the exact same thing when I got word of a touch screen iPod. I really do love the clickwheel. I find it to be one of the best controls I've used on a PMP and I've used plenty. To take it away would sort of destroy the experience for me. I often FF through tracks and adjust volume by feel. I couldnt do that with a big rectangular touch surface.

One possible solution would be simple controls for pocket functions on the side of the iPod, similar to the volume control that's on the iPhone. It would solve the problem for blind controlling.

Lynxpoint
Feb 22, 2007, 04:01 PM
A TV really isn't in their future... at least not without some serious re-tooling of the concept. If we redefine what a TV is, then you might actually have something. But really... Why do this at all when you can sell an Apple display AND a Mac... two high-quality, high-margin products instead of one mediocre-quality, low-margin product?

If Apple is a "high end" brand, then why not offer a high-end branded tv. B&O offer overpriced plasmas (tech wise) so you can get a bezel that matches the speakers. Apple could apply the same marketing.

KingofAwesome
Feb 22, 2007, 04:02 PM
One possible solution would be simple controls for pocket functions on the side of the iPod, similar to the volume control that's on the iPhone. It would solve the problem for blind controlling.

I was thinking about this too, but I went a different way - what if you could use the touchscreen blindly? Imagine if you touch the screen with your index finger, and then slide your middle finger up and down. Maybe tap your middle finger to alternate between seeking and adjusting volume.

These are just off the top of my head, but I'm sure Apple designers have put more thought into this, and given their creative UI feats in the past, I trust that they could come up with something equally good.

EricNau
Feb 22, 2007, 05:47 PM
Speak for yourself. I have an HDTV and I want a-la carte programming more than anything else right now. Do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to spend $90 a month just to get a handful of HDTV channels?

The cable/dish companies tier their programming so in order to get the 10 or so HDTV channels available they require you to sign up for basic, extended and digital first... bringing you around to $80-90 a month just so you can have the few channels of HD content you really want to watch.Too bad iTunes doesn't offer HD content. If you want HD content on your TV, you still need cable.



Even if you're a family of five and you have three TV's let's say... you still can't watch 200 channels all at once... So you're paying for tons of channels that at any given time are completely useless to you. Given the crap programming that's out there, frankly, most of them are useless when you're watching them anyway! Nevermind commercial interruptions...

Sure, that $80-90 seems like a steal when you break it out over the number of channels you get, but again that's a false way of calculating your return. Instead, divide that $80-90 by the minutes of programming you actually watch in a month. Then subtract from that value the programs you don't watch completely... channel surfing 60 different programs in an hour cannot be worth 60, or even 30 whole programs. i.e. You wouldn't pay the same for one random minute of sixty different hour-long programs as you'd pay for one sixty minute program, would you?

Now also subtract the total number of minutes of commercial interruptions... You almost forgot this one didn't you? Easy to forget but even if you're not watching commercials intently, you're being robbed of your time while you wait for the program to resume or surf until you hit another program in progress. The value of the commercials is partly what subsidizes the cost of 200 plus channels of crap. So why shouldn't it be subtracted from your net gain or added to the actual valuation of the monthly cost to you for this service?

What I want is a-la carte programming... so I can buy the few shows I really want to watch, and watch them whenever I feel like it... rather than surfing through 200 channels of garbage until something interesting comes on.
...
Sure, a la carte channels would be nice (and I believe, what most customers want), but that isn't what iTunes offers. The iTunes Store offers a la carte episodes, giving the consumer too many choices, and forcing them to weigh each TV shows against the price (e.g. Is LOST really worth nearly $50 a year? Do I really need to watch Desperate Housewives? I'm not sure John stewart is worth the money. etc. etc.). This is not what most customers what - TV should be entertainment, not a business decision.

EricNau
Feb 22, 2007, 05:54 PM
Apple doesn't have to get huge market share for this deal to work and for the cable/satellite carriers to suffer. The customers that Apple takes would be the good ones: high-income households that buy a lot of value-added features like HD.
Once again, too bad Apple doesn't offer HD content.

Nobody watches 250 channels, and a fully on-demand service would actually be better than cable. Instead of 250 channels with nothing on, it would be one service with everything on. It would be like a giant DVR loaded up with everything you want to watch.

Apple could have allowed DVR functionality on either the Mac mini or :apple:TV and elected not to. Apple is NOT going to go the DVR route unless they completely change the direction they're headed in right now. If you have a subscription plan with access to everything, you'll never need to DVR anything. You'll just select that show and watch it.
Yes, that would be nice, but right now Apple doesn't offer a subscription service. Basically, what you just described is what I get from my cable service.

greenmeanie
Feb 22, 2007, 06:25 PM
I think it is a good move by them. Just concentrate on their products they offer now. I think a tablet and a macbook pro 12" would be a waste of their time.

Mac Fly (film)
Feb 22, 2007, 06:33 PM
In the meantime, Apple said it "doesn’t expect to broadly proliferate into any new categories for a while"

In other words after that while is up they will make TV's etc. And I can't wait :D
In other news Apple coughs, the world gets a cold.

DelawareJohn
Feb 22, 2007, 06:39 PM
I really wish Apple would sell an Apple branded big screen TV to hang on my wall.

surferfromuk
Feb 22, 2007, 06:39 PM
I'd certainly pay a premium for a dammed sexy Apple brand TV to be sat pride of place in my living room and especially one that had 'Apple TV' functionality inside. If I could stream my mac's desktop or 'dock' my ipod into the top of it then that'd be the icing on the cake!

Sooner or later someone is going to do this and if Apple don't they're going to see their own loyal fanbase buying this kit from elsewhere...it's just totally obvious that in a years time HDTV's are going to have a Hard disk and wi-fi in them. These little gray boxes under the TV are all going to disappear eventually...where to? - inside the TV!

I mean, the name Apple TV is already confusing the crap out of 'non-apple' people!

Even if only 20% of their Apple fans bought one they'd surely be shipping a million of them a year!...

andysc
Feb 22, 2007, 06:43 PM
Wonder how much Apple TV's would cost, if not for the name itself?

bdj21ya
Feb 22, 2007, 07:04 PM
I don't know if I agee with this line of thought. In my opinion, it makes more sense to bring out the 6G Widescreen Touchscreen iPod now.

Why?

If I'm planning on buying an iPhone in June, I'm gonna buy. I've got money for an expensive phone and I've got money for an expensive plan. If I'm buying $599 phone and agreeing to $1800 2 year contract (that's $75 x 24 mo), I'm agreeing to be ready to spend almost $2500 in the next 2 years.

Now if Apple releases the 6G iPod for $299-399, it's quite possible (since I've got cash) to go ahead and get used to the "experience" of the touchscreen technology that I'll have in 3-4 months. At which time, I either keep both units or I can decide to give that one away. It's an impulse move but it's "only" an extra $299-399, on top of the $2500 commitment their bracing for. And it's an extra $299-399 in Apple's pocket.

If the 6G iPod comes out AFTER the iPhone, those iPhone owners would most surely not cough up the additional money. They have their slick iPod experience in their phone and the wallet is shut.

If I'm NOT buying an iPhone in June, why not make a big splash in the 2nd quarter and get those not buying in the 3rd to at least throw money in the till now. It's $299-399 in Apple's pocket now.

I say, bring on the 6G iPod now, 'cause I ain't buying an iPhone in June!

I disagree with your description of the average consumer's thoughts, but there's not much to talk about there. However, I think that one more reason you won't see this widescreen touch iPod until the end of this year is because the technology isn't quite worked out yet with the HDD player and battery life. Making even a 32 GB flash iPod would be insanely expensive.

surferfromuk
Feb 22, 2007, 07:16 PM
Wonder how much Apple TV's would cost, if not for the name itself?

I 'd say equivelant to the Sony Bravia range plus maybe 10% for the Apple TV /ipod dock technology...there has to be plenty of profit in that as Bravia's are twice the price of 'budget LCD TV's'...

Rocketman
Feb 22, 2007, 08:19 PM
Has ANYONE noticed the four hardware lines consist of two lines that have not been released yet, and the ones that do exist have big-a$$ legs and multiple hardware implementations?

Mac - over 6 styles of hardware (40+ historically)
iPod - over 4 styles of hardware (10+ historically)
iPhone - ONE announced style of hardware (implies some might be added to ATN :) )
:apple: TV - ONE announced style of hardware (implies some might be added)

So in short, two entirely NEW hardware lines have been added, and discussed "on the record" as having LEGS, and only one of a multitude of future poroducts have ever been discussed for each of those TWO new lines in ONE year.

Some might believe this might be good for the stock.

Rocketman

digitalbiker
Feb 22, 2007, 08:28 PM
They might be able to get people to switch off cable, but frankly it is not very cost competitive right now. Right now I get to watch six+ shows a week plus maybe a couple of movies a week. I watch tennis when there is an Open and maybe a bit of soccer occasionally.

So what does iTunes let me do, movies cost how much? no matter how old they are. Can I watch soccer? What about tennis live? What about the Olympics? Then take my six shows a week (and that is pretty reasonable, about an hour of TV a night..). That is like $12 a week so $48 a month. And that doesn't count the occasional Antiques Roadshow, History Channel show, or whatever else catches my fancy. Is there Globe Trekker on there?

I am sure a lot of this stuff is coming, but the costs are too high right now to replace cable.

I agree completely. Apple TV is not a replacement for sat tv or cable. I think instead it augments that choice and is more direct competition to the DVD rental market.

Besides I do not want to see the sat tv or free over the air broadcast tv go the way of the horse and buggy. Can you imagine the cost of sports shows, olympics, sports opens, news, tv series and movies if they were only supported by pay per view markets. Right now local and national advertising foot the bill for all of this programing.

If we went to pay per view only, local advertising would be gone, and network advertising would never pay for the comercial time like they do now.

digitalbiker
Feb 22, 2007, 08:32 PM
I 'd say equivelant to the Sony Bravia range plus maybe 10% for the Apple TV /ipod dock technology...there has to be plenty of profit in that as Bravia's are twice the price of 'budget LCD TV's'...

Sony is going to end up competing with Apple TV with the Bravia line. The latest announcement is that the Bravia line will have ethernet built-in with a high-speed movie download service direct from the Sony Entertainment Catalog which by the way includes a lot of movies.

andysc
Feb 22, 2007, 08:48 PM
The problem with the Bravia line--unsure about the other Sony HD TVs--is that they only have one HDMI port, which is a major downfall. Other companies have at least 2 HDMI ports.

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 10:17 PM
Too bad iTunes doesn't offer HD content. If you want HD content on your TV, you still need cable.

Why is anyone even arguing this? Because they aren't offering it yet? Then why not change your argument to "Too bad they aren't offering the AppleTV"? After all, the AppleTV has yet to hit stores.

I am befuddled by the number of people who do not think forward and believe that Apple introduced a product capable of 720p just for giggles. When the 640x480 iPods hit the market, iTunes Store started carrying 640x480 content.

Given the datacenter expansions Apple has quietly been doing in the background during the AppleTV's development, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll introduce 720p content... It's just a question of when at this point.

Are the posters on this board so seriously lacking in vision that they'd walk into a 35,000 square foot construction site saying, "I can't imagine why any business would want to be located here... the site's not even finished!"

Sure, a la carte channels would be nice (and I believe, what most customers want), but that isn't what iTunes offers.

I never said that... and neither did the surveys. I'm talking about a-la carte programming. A-la carte... as in individual programs, not channels.

And regardless of what you believe, no... a-la carte channels aren't what's most desired. Internet-downloadable, a-la carte episodes are the more highly desired of the two.

The iTunes Store offers a la carte episodes, giving the consumer too many choices, and forcing them to weigh each TV shows against the price (e.g. Is LOST really worth nearly $50 a year? Do I really need to watch Desperate Housewives? I'm not sure John stewart is worth the money. etc. etc.). This is not what most customers what - TV should be entertainment, not a business decision.

Tell that to the DVD distributors who are doing assloads of business with TV series on DVD. TV series purchases on DVD have exploded from a curiosity to a full-blown industry upon which DVD distributors such as NBC-Uni rely for a huge chunk of their business. I know this not only because of the sales figures for this end of the business, but I also used to write reviews. Many distributor's PR agents drove me up the wall with their constant bombardment of TV-on-DVD marketing collateral.

But then you're mixing arguments... I don't get it. First you talk about episodes and then you shift gears to entire seasons (e.g. "Is LOST really worth $50 a year?"). You do realize nobody is putting a gun to iTunes users' heads locking them into entire seasons, right? You can buy episodes OR seasons. Neither DVD nor cable nor dish give you that flexibility.

I also think your response now is entirely inconsistent with your previous response which I was debating. First you argue that 250 channels gives you choice... Now you argue against too many choices? Then what the hell do you call 250 channels if not too many choices?

The issue consumers gripe about most isn't the quantity of choices... it's the quality of choices. A-la carte episodes doesn't cast consumers into a chasm of unfathomable proportion any more than walking into Best Buy does.

The difference is that Best Buy is extremely unhelpful in narrowing down those choices to your preferences. Same goes with video rental stores. I walked into a video store the other day and while browsing one idiot clerk proffered the unsolicited recommendation of John Cena's "The Marine." If the store management had any sense, they'd have trained this person to gauge my preferences by asking a few simple questions... Even easier, I tend to make snide remarks when walking by crap movies on the shelves (not that I think it's mature of me... it's just a habit). An OBSERVANT sales rep could have gathered information from my browsing habits and running commentary, even without talking to me, and could have made a more useful suggestion. THAT is precisely what iTunes Music Store does!

"Walk" into iTunes Store and your purchasing habits are duly noted, categories are well-organized to help you constrain your browsing to what you're in the mood for at any particular moment. And on occasion, recommendations are made that you might not have thought of, but still based on your general usage habits.

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point... flipflopping from "250 channels" to "too much choice", making points predicated not on what will be, but complaining about what lies in a future you can't seem to see.

Avatar74
Feb 22, 2007, 10:21 PM
If Apple is a "high end" brand, then why not offer a high-end branded tv. B&O offer overpriced plasmas (tech wise) so you can get a bezel that matches the speakers. Apple could apply the same marketing.

And how many overpriced plasma sets does Bang & Olufsen sell? How much of the cost goes to a third-party manufacturer who designs and manufactures the display components?

Apple's brand positioning is quite different from Bang & Olufsen. While Apple is a premium brand, B&O caters primarily to audiophiles seeking astronomically-priced equipment with unconventional industrial design. The reasons they entered into the display market have more to do with the general shift of audio equipment purchases into the dual-purpose home theater and music applications that have greatly accelerated the sales of higher-end audio equipment.

One of B&O's most popular products is the A8 earbud set. Guess what retail chain sells the majority of them... (hint: it's not Bang & Olufsen).

Apple is a computer technology-driven company and their solutions have more to do with a computer/network driven lifestyle. They have no interest in releasing a TV in the conventional sense of the word because the key component that separates an HDTV from a computer display these days is the presence of an ATSC tuner and, in some cases, an HDTV cable card. Apple's strategic goal with AppleTV is to supplant television programming with internet-distributed, a-la carte programming. This should be obvious given the lack of a DVR, ATSC tuner and/or cable card on the AppleTV.

EricNau
Feb 22, 2007, 10:37 PM
But then you're mixing arguments... I don't get it. First you talk about episodes and then you shift gears to entire seasons (e.g. "Is LOST really worth $50 a year?"). You do realize nobody is putting a gun to iTunes users' heads locking them into entire seasons, right? You can buy episodes OR seasons. Neither DVD nor cable nor dish give you that flexibility.
Yes, because most viewers only want to watch every-other episode of LOST. :rolleyes:

Assuming the customer wanted to watch the entire season (duh!), it's cheaper to buy a season pass (or multi-pass).

Of course, you're right, in some cases, in the customer only wanted to buy a single episode (which is rare), it can be done.

I also think your response now is entirely inconsistent with your previous response which I was debating. First you argue that 250 channels gives you choice... Now you argue against too many choices? Then what the hell do you call 250 channels if not too many choices?

The issue consumers gripe about most isn't the quantity of choices... it's the quality of choices. A-la carte episodes doesn't cast consumers into a chasm of unfathomable proportion any more than walking into Best Buy does.

...

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point... flipflopping from "250 channels" to "too much choice", making points predicated not on what will be, but complaining about what lies in a future you can't seem to see.
Choices are great, until money is involved.

Once the cable bill is paid for the month, it's out of sight and out of mind. Meaning, most people aren't thinking about the money flying out of their pockets while watching Desperate Housewives. With the iTunes store, you can't help but notice the price of each episode, and second-guess if you really want it.

So yes, choices are great, as long as they seem free.


...But of course, this is probably great for America, because I guarantee people will be watching less TV.

surferfromuk
Feb 23, 2007, 03:51 AM
I think it's obvious a TV is coming, otherwise why else call that 'TV streamer' Apple TV when it was iTV, which clearly falls into line with the rest of their i-naming convention. They didn't, for example, call the iphone the Apple Phone. That's the TV's brain they're developing right there under 'covert' disguise' - once perfected it's just a drop in card and your TV solution is good to go...

Apple TV gives the game away - that's the 'stake' in the ground. And it indicated, as rockertman said that 'Apple TV' is a new brand line hardware development road...and down that road is a nice big juicy 50" Apple brand TV in white with a nice silver bezel around the ede and lots of Apple core animation goodness and streaming technology all over it...

my wallet awaits.... Apple - if your reading this...this could be bigger than ipods!!

FleurDuMal
Feb 23, 2007, 04:02 AM
I think it's obvious a TV is coming, otherwise why else call that 'TV streamer' Apple TV when it was iTV, which clearly falls into line with the rest of their i-naming convention. They didn't, for example, call the iphone the Apple Phone.

Because I think these guys might have something to say about it: http://www.itv.com/

surferfromuk
Feb 23, 2007, 04:23 AM
mmh, maybe that's it...but pre-existence didn't stop them using iphone...and that's just a hard-up UK TV channel and not an intergalactic transnational super corp like Cisco...

Anyway, a 'great idea' is still a great idea - and a nice big Apple Telly is definately that...

'When in rome....'

Avatar74
Feb 23, 2007, 07:35 AM
mmh, maybe that's it...but pre-existence didn't stop them using iphone...and that's just a hard-up UK TV channel and not an intergalactic transnational super corp like Cisco...

Anyway, a 'great idea' is still a great idea - and a nice big Apple Telly is definately that...

'When in rome....'

Depends on what you mean by TV. If you simply mean a large display on which to watch your H.264 movies... they already have one. It's called the 30" Cinema HD. They could make a 40" Cinema HD or 50" Cinema HD... but is this a "TV" in the common sense of the word? No.

So if you mean a TV in the sense of having an ATSC tuner, a cable card, etc. then no. It's not in the cards because it would cannibalize one of their biggest strategic objectives for AppleTV and iTunes.

Their AppleTV-iTunes product-service collaboration is predicated upon the idea of a-la carte programming and positioned as a direct competitor to broadcast, cable and dish. To introduce a product at tremendous expense in an HDTV-saturated market relying on third party vendors for almost all the display components only to cannibalize their own iTunes/AppleTV sales by facilitating the competing content delivery formats (especially while their content delivery concept is still taking off) is absurd.

iAlan
Feb 23, 2007, 07:39 AM
Cover your nuts, [enter company name here]. You're about to get kicked in the sack.

What more can I add to that....

Nym
Feb 23, 2007, 09:06 AM
I have one of those, actually. It's called a PowerBook G4.

Just start burning the DVD, flip over the PowerBook, and lay the bagel directly over the processor.

:D

Ahahah, these overheating powerbook jokes never get old ;)

Avatar74
Feb 23, 2007, 09:36 AM
Once the cable bill is paid for the month, it's out of sight and out of mind.

Not if your cable bill is nearly $100 a month.

Meaning, most people aren't thinking about the money flying out of their pockets while watching Desperate Housewives.

You seem to be confusing the average cable customer for the target demographic for AppleTV, or Apple products in general, for that matter. The average cable customer is not an issue here.

AppleTV is targeted primarily at HDTV owners. While it will work on SDTV's its design is built with HDTV in mind. The core target market for AppleTV would naturally be customers who presently spend upwards of $70/mo. on cable/dish.

Are there customers in that niche that don't pay attention to their cable bill? Sure. But by and large a person is more likely to be irritated by a $100 a month bill than a $50 a month bill regardless of how much income you bring in.

But here's the rub... When you compare the products and services of cable versus the products and services of iTunes, there are differing scales involved in the purchase decision.

If you're going to get hit with a $70 recurring, let's say, you're more likely to shop around to try to get a deal than say if you're at Best Buy and on your way out you pick up a $9.99 movie off the discount racks that are very intentionally placed at the endcaps of the cash registers.

This is impulse buy psychology. Apple has done considerable research on the price points needed and the store design needed to help feed impulse buy purchases. Music tracks under a dollar, movies just under $10... these figures weren't arrived at by throwing darts on a wall but rather by studying other retail outlets and the design of their impulse purchase merchandising techniques. Also, Amazon.com.

With the iTunes store, you can't help but notice the price of each episode, and second-guess if you really want it.

While you can not only visibly see the drain of a $70 recurring charge in your bank account but you can visualize it relative to your monthly expense, the iTunes Store has a very clever means of fire-and-forget impulse buying. In this case, your credit card's already preprogrammed... Compared to writing a check, paying cash or swiping a card for that $10 movie placed oh so intentionally at the endcap of the checkouts at Best Buy, the iTunes Store model is even more seductive... Push a button. DONE!

It's so easy and so addictive to push a button and get the movie you want without physically traversing the myriad aisles of a superstore, relying on inept clerks who aren't as helpful to find exactly what you want as a system with intelligent searching that also gives you the ability to watch a clip to confirm that's the movie you're looking for (or to find out if you'll like it).

At the moment of the purchase decision and execution there's absolutely nothing blaring in your face reminding you that you've just spent $10 on a movie! You don't even see the total... the receipt is e-mailed to you later.

Now, let's go back to our $70 a month (and again this figure is generous... after taxes, fees, etc. my bill comes to $95 a month) example. That recurring charge is pretty easy to pick out in your monthly bank statements. However, a bunch of scattered charges from Apple for much lower amounts individually are something you'll easily forgive or rationalize the same way very few people keep track of the hordes of money they drop at convenience stores and vending machines while at work or out shopping on the weekends.

The price points have been heavily researched so as to keep them at levels that Apple's target customers will easily accept as impulse purchases at the least. Sure, there are those like me who also do reasoned searching... but if something is cheap enough to be an impulse buy, price isn't going to be a big inhibitor to the more heavily researched purchases on the same system. In other words, if I'm willing to drop $10 on a movie I hadn't really thought through all that much... I'm more than willing to drop $10 on a movie I really want.

job
Feb 23, 2007, 09:52 AM
I think what Apple sees is the inevitable technological convergence on the horizon. As an extension of their "digital hub" strategy whereby they evangelized the concept of the computer as the central hub to which content-driven devices (e.g. digital camera, video camera, iPod, etc.) would connect to enhance functionality in both directions, Apple is cross-pollenating the market with iPhone and AppleTV... both are devices that communicate with iTunes (the "hub").

Exactly. All the media in your life, whether music, video, movies, and even email and even Internet based media like Flash, will all eventually converge into one system or network. We're already seeing it with Airport Express and now :apple:TV because the Mac becomes the central hub. The speakers/HiFi and the television only become extensions of the computer to display the media.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen for a long, long, time. People like having their huge HD TVs with over 250 channels to chose from an any moment. :apple:tv essentially destroy that. It might work for singles who are busy working all day and don't have time for more than 1 or 2 TV shows a day, but for families, it's just is not feasible. ...Right now, :apple:tv is just a gimmick, and to be honest, I don't expect this product to take Apple anywhere.

I'm not so sure about that. These days I doubt everyone who has cable or sat connections are watching all of the shows on all of their channels. If you really take the time to look at how many different TV shows you watch and the number of different channels that you actually watch at any given time, I'm sure it's nowhere near the total amount available. People watch what they want to watch and if that's offered without any commercials and is also able to be replayed over and over again as long as their computer and storage system lasts, it might be more attractive than paying $XXX per month for a bunch of stuff that you never watch.

The only way :apple:tv makes sense to me is if I were allowed to record TV on my Mac through my existing cable subscription, and stream it to my Television (similar to Windows Media Center, only better). That would actually be quite nice. ...But until Apple introduces this "true" Media Center, consider me totally unimpressed.

There's nothing to say this won't happen in the future. :apple:TV can already stream video from a connected Mac, so the technology is already there. If I had to bet money, I'd wager that it's the television networks that would be reluctant to let Apple be able to capture the signal and then stream it back to the computer, primarily because that could facilitate the distribution of television shows and movies across the Internet, especially if the recording process lacks DRM.

Speak for yourself. I have an HDTV and I want a-la carte programming more than anything else right now. Do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to spend $90 a month just to get a handful of HDTV channels?

There we go folks. I'm reluctant to pay $35 for basic cable when all I really watch are the occasional sports broadcasts. I'm more willing to pay $50 for the entire year and watch all of the baseball games I want on my computer with the ability to choose which games I watch at which time than pony up the costs of a cable or sat connection and only watch what is broadcast in my region.

A-la carte and on-demand is the future of television. People will be more willing to pay for what they want to watch instead of a plethora of stuff that they don't. Quality > Quantity. Who wants to watch 250 channels when only a few are offered in HD and even less offer quality programming?

Sure, that $80-90 seems like a steal when you break it out over the number of channels you get, but again that's a false way of calculating your return. Instead, divide that $80-90 by the minutes of programming you actually watch in a month. Then subtract from that value the programs you don't watch completely... channel surfing 60 different programs in an hour cannot be worth 60, or even 30 whole programs. i.e. You wouldn't pay the same for one random minute of sixty different hour-long programs as you'd pay for one sixty minute program, would you?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What I want is a-la carte programming... so I can buy the few shows I really want to watch, and watch them whenever I feel like it... rather than surfing through 200 channels of garbage until something interesting comes on.

Bingo. And I can't wait for the day that sat/cable providers bite the dust. Hell, why not let the networks sell them directly to the consumer, or utilize a middle company like Apple to provide the distribution system (iTunes) over an already well established network (the Internet)?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One great choice is better than many mediocre choices. Being able to pick the few programs I want is better than being forced to pay for a stream of hundreds if not thousands of programs I don't want, don't need and don't watch.

Amen brother.

AppleTV is one huge step toward fixing this and making the browsing, purchasing, delivery and exhibition of the internet-based model FAR more convenient than conventional cable and satellite TV.

The most critical component to the success of this distribution model is the successful, uncluttered, EASY bridging of the computer/network with the television with a user interface that's more convenient than existing menuing systems for DVR's and media center type configurations.

This is why AppleTV is the "killer app" of 2007.

Absolutely correct.

surferfromuk
Feb 23, 2007, 10:59 AM
It's not in the cards because it would cannibalize one of their biggest strategic objectives for AppleTV and iTunes.


Well I would say that's very short sighted and 'exclusionist' to the extreme of Apple but I don't think they're not going to do this for a moment.

Having the Apple TV 'itunes/mac' streaming engine embedded into an Apple brand 'consumer' large screen TV ( ie not a computer monitor no matter how 'good' it might be) will only create more users accessing the HD IP network services that Itunes/Apple provide. Furthermore having a dock for the ipod is just a no-brainer.

Your never going to change the entire viewing habits of a continent and there is no point in trying to be all things to all people.

Apple merely provide one of many ways to access TV and media and they do a great job of it.

If there kit is embedded in their sexy TV then people may not be so quick to 'tie up' with another service but even if they do they'll still enjoy a beautiful TV with 'embedded Itunes et al'. PVR/DVR is inevitable in Apple TV2.

All this stuff is - Apple not making a 'designer TV' isn't going to stop the competition from creating some incredible convergent 'living room' viewing solutions which threaten that little grey apple TV box far more than an embedded TV solution.

I simply don't accept an Apple LCD HD TV goes against some pre-conceived idea of Apple's 'strategic plan'.

Butthead
Feb 23, 2007, 11:33 AM
Sorry to be so cynical, but isn't this pg2 rumor material?

Yet another 'analyst' speculates on a broadrange, long-term forecast? Umm, where have I seen this before, lol.

So we might as well then (Admin?) plop up a competing rumor story ( did a quick check on this thread and haven't seen the link yet).

A UBS Investment Research analyst said this week: ...yawn, let the speculating threads begin ;).
Apple may host Leopard event, intro ultra-portables, bring iPhone to Best Buy (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2518)

Apple may hold a media evet in April or May for the intro of Leopard...wow, now there's a real stretch :), I wish I could get paid $$$ as an 'analyst' to BS like that!

AoWolf
Feb 23, 2007, 06:59 PM
New products are great but I would really like to see some evolution in the computer line. We have new intel cpus now give us a some new case designs.

TenaciousPZ
Feb 23, 2007, 11:44 PM
Introducing the Maclet.

15" x 10" x 1" All screen tablet.

Fully Multi-Touch OSX.5

2 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo

2 gig ram

Slot-loading SuperDrive

Bluetooth 2

All Macbook pro ports.

ingenious
Feb 24, 2007, 12:09 AM
so an "iPhone-less" video iPod is not necessarily out of the question, then. :D At least, that's what I'd like to see, albeit with a much larger storage capacity. I currently have a 30GB 5G iPod and would love to replace it with either a 30GB iPhone or 30GB "iPhone-less" video iPod :D

:apple: HawaiiMacAddict


I really, really, really don't think they're going to release an multi-touch iPod sans the iPhone. It makes it too confusing to customers...

"Oh! you got that new :apple: Phone, huh?"
"Uh, no, this is the iPod with video without phone but with multi-touch..." :rolleyes:

andysc
Feb 24, 2007, 12:26 AM
New products are great but I would really like to see some evolution in the computer line. We have new intel cpus now give us a some new case designs.

I agree. The powerbook/macbook lines are overdue for a design overhaul. Hopefully the rumors about slimmer laptops will come to fruition.

Killyp
Feb 24, 2007, 05:07 PM
If Apple is a "high end" brand, then why not offer a high-end branded tv. B&O offer overpriced plasmas (tech wise) so you can get a bezel that matches the speakers. Apple could apply the same marketing.

What's B&O ever done to you? Best TVs on the market, you won't find a picture that'll better them.


On the topic of the conversation, I don't think Apple should enter the TV market. Leaves making TVs up to the TV manufacturers, it's just too different from making computer monitors...

iW00t
Feb 24, 2007, 07:56 PM
Has ANYONE noticed the four hardware lines consist of two lines that have not been released yet, and the ones that do exist have big-a$$ legs and multiple hardware implementations?

Mac - over 6 styles of hardware (40+ historically)
iPod - over 4 styles of hardware (10+ historically)
iPhone - ONE announced style of hardware (implies some might be added to ATN :) )
:apple: TV - ONE announced style of hardware (implies some might be added)

So in short, two entirely NEW hardware lines have been added, and discussed "on the record" as having LEGS, and only one of a multitude of future poroducts have ever been discussed for each of those TWO new lines in ONE year.

Some might believe this might be good for the stock.

Rocketman

I don't understand, doesn't the Mac Mini or the Airport Extreme have no legs as well? The airport extreme also only comes in "one style", it doesn't mean we will see a Airport Extreme Turbo later this year...

EricNau
Feb 24, 2007, 08:01 PM
There's nothing to say this won't happen in the future. :apple:TV can already stream video from a connected Mac, so the technology is already there.
True, it might happen in the future, but so far it hasn't. I'm focusing on what is happening, not what might happen. You're right, the technology is already there - making it even more frustrating that Apple doesn't want me to record my own TV shows.

If I had to bet money, I'd wager that it's the television networks that would be reluctant to let Apple be able to capture the signal and then stream it back to the computer, primarily because that could facilitate the distribution of television shows and movies across the Internet, especially if the recording process lacks DRM.

You better let Microsoft know - they've had this functionality for years and the television networks haven't managed to stop them yet. Quite frankly, Apple's market share isn't large enough for them to care.


Over all, I think Apple is headed in the right direction... for the long term. Eventually everything will be centered around the computer and the internet, and Apple has already started doing this. In the short term however, we need a "bridge" to connect the current era to the future, and that bridge is the ability to record cable TV shows.

scstsut
Feb 24, 2007, 08:26 PM
Of course Apple'll put multi-touch into Macs and iPods! You don't just sit on that kind of innovation. The question is when are they going to rebirth the iBook (http://sqribbles.blogspot.com/2007/02/ibook-after-macbook.html).

job
Feb 25, 2007, 11:32 AM
You're right, the technology is already there - making it even more frustrating that Apple doesn't want me to record my own TV shows.

Two words: iTunes Store. You = recording your own shows = no need to buy them off of iTunes.

I'll wager that Apple doesn't want you to be able to record your own shows for that exact reason. I'll also bet that the ability for :apple:TV to record shows from broadcasts will be a third party hack or application completely unsupported by Apple.

You better let Microsoft know - they've had this functionality for years and the television networks haven't managed to stop them yet. Quite frankly, Apple's market share isn't large enough for them to care.

After some thought, I think I was off on my initial thoughts. Microsoft, when they first released their Media Center edition, didn't have a music or video store to worry about. They didn't have to worry about users not purchasing items because they could record them for free when it was broadcast. Apple has to worry, because allowing users to record the shows would take away the reason for offering shows to purchase on iTunes.

mrthieme
Feb 25, 2007, 12:17 PM
I have really been liking the idea of a multitouch tablet, hopefully that qualifies as being within the current lines. I need something new to drool over.