Apple Could Sell 13 Million Televisions According to Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty

[Truffy]

Originally Posted by nippyjun

It's funny when the analysts pull numbers out of thin air

Actually, the numbers were pulled from a survey of 1,568 US households. It was only then that they were extrapolated from thin air.

[waloshin]

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

Basic statistics.

Basic statistics would have a polling of around 40% not 1500 people.

[nazaar]

Originally Posted by skate71290

13 million + 1

+1

[kralnor]

The best part is how these people say they'd be willing to pay over $1000 for an iTV, with absolutely no information about what it would do differently than their $600 tv (apart from having an apple logo and presumably thinner edges)

[Moshe1010]

$1000 for what? probably for 30" TV. But hey look, there is an Apple logo on it - I MUST have it!!!

[The Bulge]

Originally Posted by kralnor

The best part is how these people say they'd be willing to pay over $1000 for an iTV, with absolutely no information about what it would do differently than their $600 tv (apart from having an apple logo and presumably thinner edges)

Same way they pay for iPhones and iPads and Macs and stuff.

[Truffy]

Originally Posted by 920R

They are Heads of households. Which means they want an Apple TV but the wife will veto it.

Yep. My wife has said I can't have one (not that I'd want one).

And I don't even live in the US and wasn't surveyed!

[gri]

11 Mio? The iPhone sold what, 5 Mio on the first weekend? 11 Million doesn't seem much compared to that. Sure, depends on the price as well. E.g. how many of these lets say 5 Mio iPhones were the high end one ($800+)?

And - it needs to be significantly different then the current AppleTV, which might die at the time of release of course.

[Truffy]

Originally Posted by waloshin

Basic statistics would have a polling of around 40% not 1500 people.

Polls are not statistics. Which is why they're easy to do...and meaningless.

[Thunderhawks]

----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Truffy

Polls are not statistics. Which is why they're easy to do...and meaningless.

Yes, all looks like she "poll"ed that out of thin air.

[Yamcha]

I would not buy an Apple Television unless the price was competitive with other brands..

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by kralnor

The best part is how these people say they'd be willing to pay over $1000 for an iTV, with absolutely no information about what it would do differently than their $600 tv (apart from having an apple logo and presumably thinner edges)

Or the sad part, depending how you look at it.

[hiptobesquare]

Originally Posted by thekev

First there is no such thing as non-disruptive advertisements. Product placement is still disruptive. They have to write it in and meet certain obligations in the way it's presented, so it is disruptive. The ads for other shows at the bottom of the screen can also be disruptive. I think you could see a combination of things.

Ads at the beginning, like trailers before a movie is fine. Ad subsidy is expected with low-cost or free-to-consumer content. Excessive ad placement and many interruption intervals in content that the consumer is already subscribing to, becomes tiresome.

Product placement is sometimes corny, but less obtrusive than stopping the story, and showing more ads, for progressively longer intervals as the program nears it's end.

It's possible to carry subscriptions yet make extremely expensive things an additional charge. That might result in lower subscription rates. Just don't be surprised if cable providers re-evaluate their fee schedules for internet service. Even today they offer packages to incentivize the purchase of multiple products. It's also important to consider that timetables won't go away completely. Even if a show is available whenever without pre-recording, they will still have a scheduled release cycle. I expect cable would still get it first and it might be available via itunes a day later.

Of course there is a release schedule. Everything that is produced cannot be available before it is completed. Nobody is expecting a temporal paradox.

But the concept of "missing a show" is ridiculous with current technology, and some content providers do not release full episodes for later viewing if one doesn't have a DVR for themselves, or doesn't have it programmed for a certain thing. And some people get in on shows in the middle of their season run, and then might want to go back and watch previous episodes, which again, some networks don't make available on the internet after the initial airing.

Netflix is cheap, and they get a fair amount of recent content. Stations have cut back on internet content due to the royalty disagreements. We'll see what happens. I dislike a trend to a la carte as it means stations would become increasingly conservative on what they green light.

Frankly, as someone disgusted with the depths to which some TV content will go, higher standards might actually be welcomed.

Plus, a free-er market for piece-meal content, means more targeted demographics, and getting closer to consumer demand, not insulated from consumer demand by bundling.

I would think that production networks would get more in tune, and efficient at providing with what their audience is looking for, not less.

But the people making un-watchable schlock to provide schedule filler might see their gravy train come to the end of the line.

As a consumer with less buying power in this economy, I would rather my entertainment dollars be spent more efficiently, and my costs be kept lower anyway. It is still the consumer's choice to just shut their media devices down altogether, and not pay for anything, and go read a book.

So if entertainment still wants a piece of the consumer's discretionary spending budget, it may be in their best interests to get more efficient and tailored to the consumer's demands... the way a marketplace works.

[Ubele]

From what I gleaned from the article, the survey didn't ask what people would expect from an Apple TV that would make it worth a premium to them (lighter and thinner?). I've been following these threads for a long time, and what most people (myself included) ideally want is the option to subscribe only to the shows or categories of shows they actually watch, to be able to watch any show on demand at any time, and to not have commercials – at a monthly cost that's less than they're paying for their current cable package. There have been posts on several threads making a good case that this ideal combination isn't economically viable from the content providers' standpoint, and also that if massive numbers of people ditch their cable TV packages in favor of an Internet-based Apple solution, then the monthly price for Internet service will have to go up to compensate. I'm keeping an open mind, but my guess is that an Apple solution would be easy to use and more elegant than what Comcast and others offer, but that it wouldn't be less expensive. If that's the case, I personally wouldn't pay for it, unless it offers some "wow" factor that I can't even imagine right now. Apple has done that before.

[phr33k]

Originally Posted by nippyjun

It's funny when the analysts pull numbers out of thin air

I don't think basing the numbers on a real-life survey is pulling them out of thin air...

[Virtualball]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Cant see it myself. Why would people pay for a TV just to buy content from iTunes, and stream airplay content to their TV? Instead you can buy a better tv, cheaper, and just get an Apple TV box.

Even if they add apps, it's still not a huge selling point for TV's. It's really not in the same place the mobile phone or tablet markets were in. TV systems are VERY different around the world.

AppleTV hasnt really worked so far, and slapping an app store on top of it really isnt going to make it any better.

(also for what its worth, you can get a RaspberryPi hooked up to your TV for $25, with Airplay, XBMC, Browsing, Apps, Netflix, etc).

Edit: Almost forgot - Microsoft has already started eating into the AppleTV's market with the Xbox - including this update today: Microsoft notices Xbox gamers, adds 43 new apps

Edit2: Another thought: You have to currently Jailbreak the AppleTV if you dont want to be stupidly restricted to Apples select few video formats. The rPi (and Xbox, and every other TV addon) can do pretty much any video format.

As a raspberry pi owner, I have to laugh at this. The rPi can NOT do Netflix or proper screen mirroring AirPlay. Also, you have to know what you're doing to flash a new OS onto the rPi, install new apps, use a powered USB hub for media, etc. etc. This isn't for novices.

ALSO, your $25 figure is wrong. The Raspberry Pi is $35 whereas a Model A version is coming soon with $25 and features a downgraded board. Not to mention it's $35 + shipping + power supply/microUSB cable + wifi card + powered USB hub + case. That's hardly $25, none-the-less a bargain when you consider the time put into setting everything up. Sure, I don't really mind, but the average person who doesn't like tinkering would never be able to do this, none-the-less do it to save $20.

[aperry]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

Same way they pay for iPhones and iPads and Macs and stuff.

Right, except the iPad actually *is* better than pretty much any competing product and it had a year advantage over anything that came even close and with it Apple successfully defined a new category of products. The iPhone revolutionized smartphones.

But this? This is the most ridiculous analysis of a survey. No one is going to buy anything until they know what it is. Sure Apple *could* sell 13 million. They also *could* sell 100. Or they *could* sell 300 million.

All this survey really tells us is that people are really interested in what Apple can bring to the table. But of course we've known that forever so it's not exactly newsworthy. The only thing that makes it remotely interesting is this number "13 million" which is a wild stretch of a conclusion based on people saying they're "interested" in a product that hasn't even been announced. One to which most people can't even figure out what Apple will add to make them want it.

[GorgonPhone]

no way in hell i would ever buy an over price apple tv..

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by Virtualball

As a raspberry pi owner, I have to laugh at this. The rPi can NOT do Netflix or proper screen mirroring AirPlay. Also, you have to know what you're doing to flash a new OS onto the rPi, install new apps, use a powered USB hub for media, etc. etc. This isn't for novices.

ALSO, your $25 figure is wrong. The Raspberry Pi is $35 whereas a Model A version is coming soon with $25 and features a downgraded board. Not to mention it's $35 + shipping + power supply/microUSB cable + wifi card + powered USB hub + case. That's hardly $25, none-the-less a bargain when you consider the time put into setting everything up. Sure, I don't really mind, but the average person who doesn't like tinkering would never be able to do this, none-the-less do it to save $20.

(Note: My apologies that was supposed to say £25 not $25. But yes, obviously there are costs for additional addons such as a power cable (£0.20 MicroUSB cable) and such).

As someone who owns 4 Pi's (two 256mb and 2 512mb models) they CAN AND DO play both Airplay and Netflix perfectly fine. If your Pi isnt setup correctly then no, they wont. But if you install the official 'Raspbian' bundle, it reallocates spare RAM to the GPU, giving very good graphic performance.

I've had 1080p content running over the XBMC implementation of airplay perfectly fine, as have many others on the RPi forums.

There is bugger all tinkering involved if you go down the Raspbian route. Hell a number of retailers even sell the Pi, with the cables and SD card pre-loaded so you plug in and go.

Even if you do it manually, flashing to the SD card really is very simple, especially from a mac, but again - you can buy ready to go SD cards.

[Lone Deranger]

Originally Posted by PeterQVenkman

Mac pro devotees (including me) are going to be super PO'd if the new USA assembly jobs are for an Apple TV.

I'll be PO'ed if the ATV comes out before the MP. (Almost certainly will).

[twigman08]

Originally Posted by Peace

Ya know. If MacRumors membership represented all Apple product buyers there would be 50 million members here.

MR does NOT represent the typical Apple product buyer.

I can see 20 million Apple TV set purchases provided it was done right.

That's the big thing right there. I see so many people that think that they are automatically Apples primary Audience. Newsflash people we are actually the minority. Just because you buy Apple products doesn't mean that you are the majority.

Same thing is said about every single Apple product. "I don't see it selling well, I don't see this. Is their a market for it?" Guess what? Time and time again that product sells and it sells big.

I remember when the iPad was a rumor. I kept reading over and over from people here how they didn't think it would sell well. Now look at it.

If done right it will sell well, just like almost any other Apple Product that was done right.

EDIT: I can tell a lot of people here never took a real College Stats class. Yep it is so easy being an Analysts. I have a minor in math and was helping someone out with a basic Stats class. I was very surprised at the amount of work and Math that went into it.

[LeandrodaFL]

Who will manufacture the TV sets? Samsung?

[str8apple]

I would buy one!
Granted this year I bought a new 46" for the bedroom and a 55" for the living room.

[j33pd0g]

The Apple TV as a box (with only the channels I wanted) I'd be interested in. As a complete TV, not so much. Why? Well, because Apple will probable never go near 3D. That could change, but based on the fact they don't offer 3D content on iTunes now, I wouldn't expect it. I'm aware that people who enjoy 3D TV are in the minority, but I enjoy it, and can't see myself not having a 3D capable TV.

[Bezetos]

They don't even know what it's going to be like, but they're "extremely interested" in buying one, because it's Apple branded.

This, my friends, is the power of Apple's marketing.