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

[proglife]

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

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

Or people that would like their TV's to stop sucking.

[Rocketman]

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

[thekev]

Originally Posted by hiptobesquare

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.

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.

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[aperry]

Originally Posted by proglife

Or people that would like their TV's to stop sucking.

Riiiight. Just let me know when you can describe how this will be less sucky.

[proglife]

Originally Posted by aperry

Riiiight. Just let me know when you can describe how this will be less sucky.

Remember what mobile phones were like before the iPhone?

Television sets are just as behind as mobile phones were when iPhone came out.

[aperry]

Originally Posted by proglife

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.

[iphoneclassic]

Originally Posted by proglife

Or people that would like their TV's to stop sucking.

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

[Nunyabinez]

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.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by proglife

Remember what mobile phones were like before the iPhone?

Television sets are just as behind as mobile phones were when iPhone came out.

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...eware_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'.

[jouster]

Originally Posted by nippyjun

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

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.

[flux73]

Originally Posted by Shrink

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.

Wow, relax. Overreact much?

[aperry]

Originally Posted by jouster

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.

That is correct. They were not made up. They were meaningless.

[jouster]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

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.

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.

[proglife]

Originally Posted by aperry

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 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.

[johnhf]

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.

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.

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by jouster

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.

Well the percentages are correct but the 13 million number is a guess/assumption/prediction.

[Navdakilla]

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

[proglife]

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

I don't know if there are any bad TVs in the market.

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.

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

Based on my experience it is always better to have software/services decoupled with actual TV.

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.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

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

They SUCK at it! Really really bad!

[Snits]

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.

[jouster]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

Well the percentages are correct but the 13 million number is a guess/assumption/prediction.

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.

[osaga]

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

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.

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?

[proglife]

Originally Posted by osaga

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.

[Mike Valmike]

Originally Posted by wikus

Cult of Brand.

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

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.

[W1LLk]

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.