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

[str8apple]

Originally Posted by LeandrodaFL

Who will manufacture the TV sets? Samsung?

My guess would be LG.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by twigman08

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.

The big difference this time around is whats on offer, what they can do, and at what price.

People will not be willing to pay 5x the average cost of a television 'just' for an AppStore.

Dont forget that this is a market that is monumentally different to anything Apple have done past or present.

Think outside your home country here. Whatever Apple makes for 1 country, wont work in any other country.

If they dont go down the whole cable/pvr route, and stick with a simple media player and apps route, then again, why would people pay 5x the price for this?

Unlike an iPhone or iPad we're not talking a couple of hundred in price difference here, we're talking thousands.

Then you've got the fact that Apple has a pretty piss poor track record with displays, and the displays it does offer are immensely expensive for what they are. The TV set will need to be priced higher than these to avoid a backlash, and effectively admitting that their displays are very overpriced.

Finally you've got the networks. Let's say Apple try and get the networks to license content to them at a reduced cost. Why would the networks do this? What advantage do they have?

You see, with the iPhone and iPad, Apple created the market. With the AppleTV, they are entering a market that's already very much established with a huge number of players, who will have no interest what so ever in partnering with Apple, who can provide zero advantage to them.

[str8apple]

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)

The only feature I want is Siri but I will not pay a crazy premium for it. This would be great for my mother who finds it hard to navigate directv menus. If they have this feature I am sure they will tie it into another iOS device where you must have a iphone, ipad, etc.

[Mike Valmike]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

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.

Yes and no. The Xbox 360 can't read NTFS or ExFAT external hard drives and the current version of the X360 ("S" redesign) can't read HFS+ drives either. Finally, the 360 doesn't interpret high profile on the fly, so anything over ~2kbps video leads to horrible skipping on a wireless connection. So, you have some hard limitations:

1. Network drive via ethernet wire, hope you don't mind doing some drywall carpentry;
2. Network drive via wi-fi, limited to DVD resolutions more or less;
3. External HDD in FAT32, limited to 4GB file size, not enough for many HD video movie files;
4. External HDD in HFS+ and you're stuck with a 4- to 7-year old X360 unit that might RROD any day;
5. For options #3 and #4, collection maintenance achieved via sneakernet as you must physically move the drive from X360 to and from your computer;

Or, use AppleTV 3 and none of these issues exist. Watch a beautiful 12GB rip of your latest blu-ray goodness (Right now for me this is "Brave" since my kids love it) via wi-fi, served either via iTunes in the Cloud or off the iTunes Library elsewhere in the house. Maintain collection remotely in the iTunes library. You can even do it while someone is watching something else on the AppleTV from the same library. It Just Works.

Some of these limitations affect the PS3 and other media players as well, but not all. Some other players have their own issues not encountered by the X360. The ATV3's only real issue is that you have to have a computer turned on with iTunes running if you want to access video from a library instead of from the cloud.

[TheHateMachine]

If Gene Munster and Katy Huberty had a child together they would probably name him Steve iTV Munserty.

[h0mi]

Originally Posted by gmanist1000

It all depends on the price.... and quality...

Originally Posted by ThatsMeRight

An Apple television... meh...

A more advanced Apple TV (the box), yes!

Price will be a huge thing. $1000 HDTV? No I don't think they'll sell that many of those.

A $100 apple tv box that has a better feature set? That could.

[topmounter]

Originally Posted by waloshin

How is 1500 a representative sample of the whole US?

seriously?

[sofila]

"46% of respondents were willing to pay over $1,000 for an iTV and 10% were willing to pay over $2,000" I don't understand from the article if respondents were aware of some detailed specifications or if they were willing to pay thousands of dollars for something they don't know anything about

[jshulman10]

I would be impressed if Apple could merge the cable box, media player, and tv. Apple is no cable company, but it would be interesting if they could take cable data and supply a more modern UI and integrate it into its own system.

[topmounter]

When are those poll takers finally going to realize that I AM LYING TO THEM

[scat999999]

It will be a huge win if they do it like they did with iTunes for music, where you just pay for the content you want to watch. TV ala carte, the way it should be, instead of the way cable is now where you're forced to pay for 150 channels for the ten you actually watch.

[wikus]

I would never buy an apple television..... I have no desire for a lousy rebranded panel with a GLOSSY FINISH.

[proglife]

the naysayers that with the "don't get it" comments are always funny 5-10 years down the road. This will be a funny little time capsule...and I'm in it! Hey future self! How's that iPhone X?

[damir00]

Originally Posted by scat999999

It will be a huge win if they do it like they did with iTunes for music, where you just pay for the content you want to watch. TV ala carte, the way it should be, instead of the way cable is now where you're forced to pay for 150 channels for the ten you actually watch.

Sure.

But what is the Cable Cabal's incentive for allowing that?

[topmounter]

Originally Posted by jshulman10

I would be impressed if Apple could merge the cable box, media player, and tv. Apple is no cable company, but it would be interesting if they could take cable data and supply a more modern UI and integrate it into its own system.

Apple could have done it years ago... just integrate a cable card slot into a television and voila! e.g. TivoHD and TivoPremiere.

[Ed217]

Considering how many households have upgraded their TV display device in the last 2-3 years (to a good quality HD set), they need to focus on both a box and a tv. Most won't want to replace their existing HD sets for another one, but might jump at a box to connect with Apple stuff.

Apple already has the box (the Mac Mini), all they need to do is customize the OS and its almost ready to go. However the key will be content, which seems to be the stumbling block.

They would be smart to work a deal with DirecTV (or someone similar) as they have locals, sports, and cable content. This might be good for DTV as their dependance on birds in the air would lesson over time. That's bound to be a cost saver for them.

[samcraig]

They could sell 5. They could sell 80 million.

Are they even building an actual television? When is it being released? In what sizes, etc etc.

Point being. It's premature to remotely predict.

[topmounter]

Originally Posted by scat999999

It will be a huge win if they do it like they did with iTunes for music, where you just pay for the content you want to watch. TV ala carte, the way it should be, instead of the way cable is now where you're forced to pay for 150 channels for the ten you actually watch.

Apple can't do it that way, unless Apple can figure out how to write a bigger check to the content owners (the networks) than what they are getting from the cable and satellite providers, not to mention the advertisers as well.

[aperry]

The questions are just idiotic. What does it mean to be "extremely interested in buying" a product that is undefined and has no price tag? I'm sure "extremely interested" becomes "totally uninterested" if it costs $10k or if it has no distinguishing features other than an Apple logo and a steep price tag. On the other hand, I'm sure many more people would be "extremely interested" if it's affordable and offers a great a la carte selection of channels or some other killer feature.

The fact is, this survey means absolutely nothing, except Apple has a great brand and people are turned on by the notion that hey could enter the TV industry. The 13 million number is 100% totally meaningless as it relates to purchases.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by flux73

In marketing classes, they teach you that companies like Tiffany sell you the little blue box and the jewelry comes for free.

Regardless of what you think of it, marketing is very important to the success of ANY company. "Do no evil" - you don't think this is marketing as well?

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.

[scat999999]

Originally Posted by damir00

Sure.

But what is the Cable Cabal's incentive for allowing that?

Why would they need the cable companies permission? They would be a content provider, just like the cable and satellite companies are.

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by monkor

I still don't get why I would want this product. Replace my existing Comcast /FiOS box with an Apple one that features a much more user-friendly experience and I'll be interested. But if it's considerably pricier than the competitors stuff (which isn't even unbearable, it's just a sluggish interface) that's of a very similar quality, then count me out.

I generally review the features and benefits of actualized products before deciding if I want to purchase something, and then I don't publish my decision. I either buy it or I don't buy it. The reasons for my decisions are personal and mine alone so they don't need to share them with the masses.

[wikus]

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)

Cult of Brand.

That Apple logo on whatever device they have or want to have means more to them than the actual device itself.

[scat999999]

Originally Posted by topmounter

Apple can't do it that way, unless Apple can figure out how to write a bigger check to the content owners (the networks) than what they are getting from the cable and satellite providers, not to mention the advertisers as well.

Considering Apple has more CASH than the US Government does, I'm not sure I see that as a stumbling block. As I said above, they'd just be another content provider at that point.

[iphoneclassic]

Originally Posted by str8apple

My guess would be LG.

No, both Samsung and LG will never help Apple to have their own real TV. They have to settle for one of the small suppliers. Samsung/LG priced out Japanese TV makers and will do the same to Apple.

Ofcourse hardcore Apple fans will definitely buy one. Not sure if there are 13 Million hardcore fans.