Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Could Sell 13 Million Televisions According to Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those stats don't even account for the fact the display is likely to be 2K or 4K and make their HDTV's as well as their "old" TV's obsolete.
That means the figure is under promised.
Rocketman
That means the figure is under promised.
Rocketman
I can understand the rest of it. When I said that it might cause really conservative production behavior, I meant this might cater even further to mass market "shlock". You can call it more in tune, but I'm suggesting that they'd stick to things that are extremely likely to succeed. It would encourage conservative behavior on the part of the networks. I'm not necessarily talking about an end to low budget trash.
It is a stupid question. The only way someone hearing this question can make the slightest sense of it is to make an assumption that the new device will be as good and as revolutionary as Apple's recent new product lines. So yes taking into account how great the iPod, iPhone and iPad are and then assuming Apple can do the same to TVs, I'm sure many folks are extremely interested. Actually, if Apple were to succeed in coming out with something as awesome in TV-land as the last three product lines have been, then folks are underestimating the interest level they would have.
However, it is entirely speculative that somehow Apple can create a TV that revolutionary. None of the speculations so far have been anything more than a set top box with a bunch of really good licensing agreements behind it, with the exception of voice control being part of it.
Remember what mobile phones were like before the iPhone?
Television sets are just as behind as mobile phones were when iPhone came out.
Yup, got it. Now just describe it to me. Make sure to include the parts about my non-Apple receiver, and my large collection of MKV movies. Make sure to tell me what networks will be signed on so that I'm sure to have all the channels that I currently do without another STB. And if I do have another STB, make sure to tell me about the IR receivers and transmitters required to control it.
I don't know if there are any bad TVs in the market. Even those sold on Black Friday tend to work few years. Sony already has XBR 4K for $25,000, so Apple cannot claim as high end player.
Apple cannot put fans on upgrade treadmill, because even if I want to buy latest model, getting rid of old TV is more difficult than selling old iPhone on ebay.
Based on my experience it is always better to have software/services decoupled with actual TV. I have a Samsung LED 3D TV purchased 3 years back. Paid $2600. It came with Internet@TV, next year it became SmartTV, year after it is SmartHub. After a while it cannot load latest apps because of hw/design/memory limitation, just like any device.
Now I don't use software apps on the TV. I have Apple TV, Roku boxes connected to it. It also helps with any licensing limitations, no YouTube on Roku, no Amazon VOD on Apple TV.
Cheaper to upgrade Apple TV(box)/Roku box or even a Samsung BluRay player with Apps
I would love an Apple TV, the whole thing, but I just bought a new HD TV last year and the only reason I got it was that I got some money from an award that was unexpected. Prior to that I had an SD TV that we had for 12+ years and the damn thing wouldn't die! I couldn't justify replacing a perfectly good TV even if it was to get HD. Now that I have a good HD TV, I'm not going to dump it even to get an Apple TV. It will have to die before I buy a new TV.
I will buy an improved hockey-puck AppleTV though. I just think that most people keep their TVs for a long time. Not like a phone that people are looking to upgrade every year. If Apple only has an all-in-one TV solution, I will be disappointed and won't be buying anything.
I will buy an improved hockey-puck AppleTV though. I just think that most people keep their TVs for a long time. Not like a phone that people are looking to upgrade every year. If Apple only has an all-in-one TV solution, I will be disappointed and won't be buying anything.
How do you figure?
TV's can currently do the following:
- Show TV programs (duh!)
- Hook up to a multitude of 3rd party hardware
- Browse the web
- Run apps
- Access to the likes of youtube, netflix, spotify, lovefilm, etc
- Stream content from other computers
- etc
Hardly comparable to the mobile phone situation.
It's a flooded market of providers, and people still dont really want this stuff. Browsing on your TV? Why the hell would you want to? Grab your iPad. Playing games? May as well get an Xbox. Streaming is about the only real use for a smart television.
Apps sound handy on a TV in concept, but practically they are a pain in the ass, and people dont want to have to piss around with a complicated keyboard or controller to use a browser or apps on the TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Smart_TV_platforms_and_middleware_software
Edit: Also you've got the purchase cycle. You buy a new phone every couple of years (or every year if you're that way inclined). You dont buy a new TV every 2 years. MOST people will only buy a new TV when the old one dies, or if they want to change size. You dont think 'ooo I must have that new TV, it's got a faster processor and will load programs quicker'.
Last edited:
What? They didn't do that - they surveyed people. Whether or not you agree (or the numbers prove to be right) is immaterial. They weren't made up.
Wow, relax. Overreact much?What I think is... I was attempting a snarky little comment on the point about the price...that's what I think.
Thank you so much for pointing out that marketing is important to the success of any product...I never would have figured that out myself as it is obviously an extremely arcane piece of information known only to those who took a marketing class.
In short, my post was nothing more than a snotty little joke...but thanks so much for the sophisticated marketing lesson.
Well, there were smartphones before the iPhone. They could do pretty much everything the iPhone did - I know, since I had one: the Motorola Q. The problem was that the user experience was miserable. That was what the iPhone revolutionized.
I don't have to. If I were that type of visionary, I would be employed at Apple coming up with this stuff that I've been previously unable to imagine.
But don't worry: you don't need to be able to fully imagine the X factor here...you can simply look at the precedent for this type of revolutionary product throughout Apple's history. They have masterfully taken clunky, difficult to use interfaces and made them markedly better. They did it with a folder/desktop OS, they did it with MP3 players, they did it with mobile phones, they did it with PDA's/tablet computers...they'll do it with televisions.
It's often at the expense of your old devices that may not be compatible. History also shows those consumer electronic vendors bend to Apple's innovation and support it.
Apple isn't just about getting stuff but also about getting rid of stuff - in this case, the mess of wires and multiple remotes. People will pay for simplicity and elegance.
Well the percentages are correct but the 13 million number is a guess/assumption/prediction.
For me the apple tv + projector is unbeatable.
I watch 1080p movies (also 3D movies as well) on a 130" screen, with full 5.1 surround audio
LOVE IT
I watch 1080p movies (also 3D movies as well) on a 130" screen, with full 5.1 surround audio
LOVE IT
There are fantastic displays on the market, but their interface and the cable box they are connected to are a complete joke. It's amazing how archaic they feel.
Isn't that Apple's entire m.o., though? to control the hardware and the software? Whether the STB ends up being physically separate from the display or not doesn't matter much to me.
They SUCK at it! Really really bad!
Will it? Won't it?
Apple might sell a TV but, in fact, it will be a computer in sheep's clothing. Apple makes computers and only computers because that's what it loves. Computers. That's Apple's heart's blood and mission in life. It also knows people have learned rightfully to hate computers. So Apple disguises computers as phones and walkmans and maybe TVs.
Maybe. Apple's learned it is not enough to disguise the computer or even to make it damn pretty: Apple knows it also needs a firehose of highly appealing content. Content that's relatively cheap and relatively exclusive. No buck a tune, no iPod. No buck an app, no iPhone. And no buck a show, no iMax.
Apple might sell a TV but, in fact, it will be a computer in sheep's clothing. Apple makes computers and only computers because that's what it loves. Computers. That's Apple's heart's blood and mission in life. It also knows people have learned rightfully to hate computers. So Apple disguises computers as phones and walkmans and maybe TVs.
Maybe. Apple's learned it is not enough to disguise the computer or even to make it damn pretty: Apple knows it also needs a firehose of highly appealing content. Content that's relatively cheap and relatively exclusive. No buck a tune, no iPod. No buck an app, no iPhone. And no buck a show, no iMax.
Last edited:
Sorry if I am reading this wrongly, but I took it to mean that the overall market for these TVs is around 130m annually, so that the 11% the survey found would equate to about 13m.
I certainly hope they enter this market. I agree with what Tim Cook said about current TV technology.
Has anyone even been following this?
Sharp will manufacture the screens. Foxcon and apple have made huge investments in sharp.
Eveyone who says they want it to be competitively priced with other tv's doesn't get it. Apple would never make just aanother tv. The would revolutionize tv. Have you not noticed how horrible our current tv delivery is?
Apparently less people in this thread have than I would have imagined. I'm dumbfounded over here.
You know, people say that, and I don't doubt that there exist SOME consumers who are so fashion-conscious that the presence of the logo, irrespective of the properties of the underlying product, is dispositive. But for the mainstream, I don't buy it.
You want to know why most people pay extra for "the Apple logo"?
Because it's usually an indicator that the underlying product will provide years of hassle-free set-it-and-forget-it usage and utility.
Full stop.
People are tired of buying the same half-baked plastic crap in the tech world; dealing with antivirus software subscriptions; remotes that work for the cable box but not the TV; phones stuffed to the breaking point with bloatware and "watch music videos for $2.99 a minute!" absurdity; notebook PCs with batteries that deteriorate from four-hour to forty-minute lifespans within the first year of ownership; and on and on.
Apple came along and said hey, pay us a little extra and here's a notebook PC that will last you three years without a second thought or else we cover you on the house via AppleCare; four to five years with a minor amount of maintenance learning on your part, and six or longer if you are technically inclined enough to cover its upkeep after that. Apple came along and said hey, pay us a little extra and here's the easiest and most intuitive cell phone you ever used, and you can toss your camera and your day planner and even your iPod in the desk drawer because you won't need them anymore, and if it fails, here's a new one and we restore it remotely from the cloud, and there's no prep or programming because it's all just there already.
Apple said these things and more and the outcome was: now the Apple logo had a meaning all its own for a certain class of buyers. That class was: buyers who wanted to USE their technology worry-free, not those who wanted to tinker with it. Steve Jobs et al figured out that the former demographic outnumbered the latter. The latter may dominate the vocal contingency of internet message board complainers, but they don't dominate Apple's revenue stream, and that's what counts.
I was once a tinkerer. Then I realized one day how much time I was losing making my technology work as I needed it to, rather than just USING it and enjoying the output products of it. I never looked back.
So no, the Apple logo isn't a fashion statement to me, or to the vast horde of buyers who are like me. To us, it's a credential. It means "Buy this product and it won't suck." And it rarely ever does... and when it does, Apple fixes it.
I understand and agree with many of the arguments and ideas that I have read here. However, if Apple makes a presentation and says, "here is the new Apple TV, It's 60" and is $3000", but then follows up with these stats:
- 4K resolution
- Siri
- Intigrated cable box (Apple UI / Jony Ive)
- HDMI & Thunderbolt/Lightning/USB
- a la carte shows or channels controlled via iTunes...
I don't care if I have to yank my 55" Sammy off the wall. I'm getting one. I really think that if they want to pull this off, it will have to be more than a current gen TV with Apple TV built in. 4K 48 is a path to achieving this.
- 4K resolution
- Siri
- Intigrated cable box (Apple UI / Jony Ive)
- HDMI & Thunderbolt/Lightning/USB
- a la carte shows or channels controlled via iTunes...
I don't care if I have to yank my 55" Sammy off the wall. I'm getting one. I really think that if they want to pull this off, it will have to be more than a current gen TV with Apple TV built in. 4K 48 is a path to achieving this.