Actually, the numbers were pulled from a survey of 1,568 US households. It was only then that they were extrapolated from thin air.
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
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!
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.
And - it needs to be significantly different then the current AppleTV, which might die at the time of release of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think basing the numbers on a real-life survey is pulling them out of thin air...
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.
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.
(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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
This, my friends, is the power of Apple's marketing.