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 Hires Cable Industry Veteran Jean-François Mulé as Engineering Director
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd love for the iTV to happen, but getting these deals internationally will be a mammoth task.
Not so much so, if these deals don't involve the cable/sat middlemen, but rather just the content owners/creators.
Toshiba just announced lay-offs because they can't make any money selling TVs, so if you think Apple wants to enter the razor thin single-digit margin world of TVs you're not thinking like a business would.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic..._to_cut_3000_jobs_from_struggling_tv_division
Now, making a "converter box" with a nice Apple GUI and all the bells and whistles is another matter entirely. Let some other company make 5% selling the glorified panel...
Think about it, does the Apple Store at the mall really want to stock, sell, and service 50" or 60" televisions for virtually no profit, while taking away all that physical space from tiny, high margin products that people upgrade every couple of years?
Ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
You are right if Apple only sells a TV! But you are not right if you don't think Apple is going to do a set top box / cable card ( no box at all ) interface and also control the content too! Think Bigger!
The key is the licensing deals and the content! Apple learned how to do the licensing with the record companies and that fits nicely on a larger scale!
Apple does not need to lower the end user cost. In fact they are likely to charge a premium. What they can offer is about the same range of choices, but with UI and process changes that makes it simpler and better. It's what they do.
They hire folks with niche skills to add to the Borg of a particular project and make a long series of prototypes until the Apple management declares it hatched. Witness the iPod and the iPhone. Nobody said let's make one. In both cases a guy came into a meeting with a pile of parts cobbled together and said look what we can do if we integrate some hardware and software and take advantage of a new trend. Micro hard drives, digital music, flash, smartphones, driveless computers. Whatever.
That's what AppleTV and AppleCar will end up being. A mash-up of disparate things stuck together at first then refined till it is simple and "insanely useful".
All for a single end. To surprise and delight. At some point it really is that simple.
Rocketman
Apple should go private. Buy back ALL their stock.
They hire folks with niche skills to add to the Borg of a particular project and make a long series of prototypes until the Apple management declares it hatched. Witness the iPod and the iPhone. Nobody said let's make one. In both cases a guy came into a meeting with a pile of parts cobbled together and said look what we can do if we integrate some hardware and software and take advantage of a new trend. Micro hard drives, digital music, flash, smartphones, driveless computers. Whatever.
That's what AppleTV and AppleCar will end up being. A mash-up of disparate things stuck together at first then refined till it is simple and "insanely useful".
All for a single end. To surprise and delight. At some point it really is that simple.
Rocketman
Apple should go private. Buy back ALL their stock.
Samsung, LG, Sony, whoever makes TV. Or even better Loewe? Some of them compete directly with Apple, yes. But so what? After all that happened, Apple still give Samsung a nice, big money to fabricate chips for iDevices. It's not impossible.
I don't know .. with Apple is all about going smaller over time. There was a 30" ACD and 23" ACD but hey Apple felt it too big for the masses. So now Apple makes 27" iMac/TBD and 21.5" iMac.
Apple TV also got a huge size reduction from the 1st gen.
And somehow Apple likes to promote iPad Mini more than current iPad w/ RD.
But now they want to make a huge TV? The margin would be too small (by Apple standard) it would be like charity for Apple.
Even a mighty
Again, low volume high value stuff is what makes Apple so huge.
There's a few exception though, iPhone screen is going (a tad) bigger but hey it's also thinner
Apple has a lot of money, IMO they would be smart to try and alter the TV experience even if it means taking a loss initially. If they can get networks to get on board with some kind of a la carte, with a powerful Apple TV DVR, they could stand to dominate the market.
I just think it's going to be extra tough after what happened to the music industry after iTunes. Content Providers are going to want to take things slowly, and not rush into deals that don't get them a lot of money. The industry is changing sloowwwwwly. It's going to take some time to get anywhere.
Toshiba just announced lay-offs because they can't make any money selling TVs, so if you think Apple wants to enter the razor thin single-digit margin world of TVs you're not thinking like a business would.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic..._to_cut_3000_jobs_from_struggling_tv_division
Now, making a "converter box" with a nice Apple GUI and all the bells and whistles is another matter entirely. Let some other company make 5% selling the glorified panel...
Think about it, does the Apple Store at the mall really want to stock, sell, and service 50" or 60" televisions for virtually no profit, while taking away all that physical space from tiny, high margin products that people upgrade every couple of years?
Ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
Very well said. There is much more money to be made with the current Apple Tv type product.
Which would you choose:
Kindle fire HD $379 or iPad $499?
Android $350 or iPhone $650?
Toshiba Laptop $800 or Macbok Air $1300?
50" Vizio $1699 or 50" iTV $2900?
Apple is the only tech company with a "wide moat" due to their software, which is becoming more and more important all the time. If they make a TV they'll have great margins, don't worry.
Will they sell zillions of them? Probably not, but I don't think they really care so long as it's an incredible product. I'm sure they'll offer a box as well, because they definitely care about strengthening the ecosystem.
I'll take the iPad & Macbook, but I would NEVER pay $650 for an iPhone no matter how much I might like it, and I would laugh if Apple ever charged $3000 for an "iTV". It will never happen.
Toshiba just announced lay-offs because they can't make any money selling TVs, so if you think Apple wants to enter the razor thin single-digit margin world of TVs you're not thinking like a business would.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic..._to_cut_3000_jobs_from_struggling_tv_division
Now, making a "converter box" with a nice Apple GUI and all the bells and whistles is another matter entirely. Let some other company make 5% selling the glorified panel...
Think about it, does the Apple Store at the mall really want to stock, sell, and service 50" or 60" televisions for virtually no profit, while taking away all that physical space from tiny, high margin products that people upgrade every couple of years?
Ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
I don't wholly disagree with you at all and have thought for a long while that it's more likely that the brunt of Apple's TV efforts would be focused on a box as opposed to a display for countless reasons, not the least of which is how decimated the industry in general is not to mention the difficulties in stocking, displaying and servicing these items in Apple Stores.
Oh yeah, Best Buy's half dead and what big players are left? Costco, Sam's Club, Target and Wal Mart? Apple will partner with them to sell a TV, oh, for sure............!!!
Anyways, there's just a lot of complications that go along with a full-blown TV, and realistically, most people don't upgrade their TVs nearly as often as Apple's other products, which makes it a lot harder to progress with the software given that so many would be running old hardware. But if you focus on the box being the center of it, at a much more reasonable price, people could be enticed to upgrade more often and Apple could be more progressive. This is why I expect a standalone box of some sort to be a major part of Apple's TV strategy either way they go, box only or full TV.
That said, I could also easily see them offering 2-3 different displays in a sort of small, small/medium and large configuration. Perhaps 32"-37", 40"-46" and 55-65". These displays though would likely be Bluetooth and WiFi-enabled monitors with only basic software built in to wirelessly communicate with iOS and Mac OS devices for AirPlay and the main TV processing box using some sort of WiFi-direct connection. Perhaps they'd run with the standard HDMI cable, but you'd have to think that a big selling point of an Apple TV display would be the utmost in simplicity, hence wireless sans a power cord. I'm sure they'd integrate a camera for making FaceTime calls as well.
But again, these would basically be large 1080P monitors more than full HDTVs. I don't think we'll see 4K in an Apple TV display for at least 2-3 years. They just went 1080P in iTunes a year and a half ago, Netflix isn't running at 4K, and H.265 is still more than a ways away from covering 4K-encoding suitable for the masses. Plus, margins!
But really, if you don't think Apple could find a way to be profitable making a display, you're kidding yourself. It might not be their most profitable item, but they haven't been as successful as they've been by accident. They can find a way, and if they make it a compelling enough option in the way that it works with the box and your other devices, it'll sell. They'll find a way to do it cheap and they'll do it right. I think they'll shock people with their pricing. Remember, no one thought the iPad would be less than $1000 before Steve Jobs hit a button and $499 dropped down. And don't compare a 1080P monitor with only basic software and i/o support with the Thunderbolt display. These would be two very different products.
I also wouldn't be shocked to see them partner with cable providers to subsidize the hardware. It's long been suggested that TVs would begin to be sold in a subsidized manner with cable contracts, and Apple knows that no matter what tech they use for content delivery, there's no getting around the cable company being involved. And while I do think it's less than likely that this will occur, again, I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.
I'm as fascinated by what Apple's planning to do with TV as anyone, and given how much I love my Apple TV boxes that I have now, I am very excited to see what a more comprehensive option will look like. I'm almost certain that we'll see a control box of sorts, but I also find it hard to believe that Apple's not going to want to allow for the option of users having a complete Apple television experience, so I do think we'll see a few displays as well. As great as having a box that handled all content would be, if you still have to bother turning your TV with the crappy interface on and making sure you're on the right input, it's still not a complete solution. I for one am so far beyond sick of dealing with my UIs on my TVs, and I will gladly be one of those people looking to buy a few Apple displays down the road. Only non-Apple display I'd want to use is my projector, as it's just a different beast and I don't expect Apple to go down that road anytime soon. But if they do...!
Like I hinted at above, it's way, way, way more complicated for TV than it was for the music industry. So many more factors. The simplest one to identify will also be the hardest to counter, and that's the fact that for the most part, the companies that control the internet connection Apple might use also sell their own cable TV and have content deals with players afraid to go to the internet fully. And do you really trust the government to properly regulate the cable industry to play fair. Even if caps were outlawed, they'd just change the plans in an instant and start selling internet by the gigabyte, just like the cellular carriers did. The whole situation is just a huge mess with too many players afraid to make concessions that would lead to a better experience for the users.
Without a single solitary shred of doubt in my mind, I believe that this is why there is no complete Apple TV yet. If you don't think they could ship a hardware and software solution 3 years ago that would annihilate the current landscape, you're kidding yourself. But without the ISPs/cable companies pipes and Hollywood's content, it'd be useless, and again, that's just a big, huge, giant mess that will continue to be tremendously difficult for Apple to deal with.
Low volume? What's low volume about iPhone or iPad? Or Macs for that matter.Samsung, LG, Sony, whoever makes TV. Or even better Loewe? Some of them compete directly with Apple, yes. But so what? After all that happened, Apple still give Samsung a nice, big money to fabricate chips for iDevices. It's not impossible.
I don't know .. with Apple is all about going smaller over time. There was a 30" ACD and 23" ACD but hey Apple felt it too big for the masses. So now Apple makes 27" iMac/TBD and 21.5" iMac.
Apple TV also got a huge size reduction from the 1st gen.
And somehow Apple likes to promote iPad Mini more than current iPad w/ RD.
But now they want to make a huge TV? The margin would be too small (by Apple standard) it would be like charity for Apple.
Even a mighty
Again, low volume high value stuff is what makes Apple so huge.
There's a few exception though, iPhone screen is going (a tad) bigger but hey it's also thinner
If Apple doesn't do a full on TV them going the hockey puck route. No way are they going to build a "smart TV" interface for competitors TVs.
People will buy it just because it says "Apple"
some will.
Others won't buy anything associated with the half-eaten Apple logo.
people were saying the same thing about cell phones 7 or 8 years ago.Toshiba just announced lay-offs because they can't make any money selling TVs, so if you think Apple wants to enter the razor thin single-digit margin world of TVs you're not thinking like a business would.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic..._to_cut_3000_jobs_from_struggling_tv_division
Now, making a "converter box" with a nice Apple GUI and all the bells and whistles is another matter entirely. Let some other company make 5% selling the glorified panel...
Think about it, does the Apple Store at the mall really want to stock, sell, and service 50" or 60" televisions for virtually no profit, while taking away all that physical space from tiny, high margin products that people upgrade every couple of years?
Ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
Also the slim profit argument applies perfectly to the computer industry.
Except Apple.
But he makes really good points. The phone is an entire different animal than TVs.
Most of what he said is true. I do think Apple will play in this field but not manufacturing the TV set per se.
Toshiba just announced lay-offs because they can't make any money selling TVs, so if you think Apple wants to enter the razor thin single-digit margin world of TVs you're not thinking like a business would.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic..._to_cut_3000_jobs_from_struggling_tv_division
Now, making a "converter box" with a nice Apple GUI and all the bells and whistles is another matter entirely. Let some other company make 5% selling the glorified panel...
Think about it, does the Apple Store at the mall really want to stock, sell, and service 50" or 60" televisions for virtually no profit, while taking away all that physical space from tiny, high margin products that people upgrade every couple of years?
Ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
I agree with you, I think they are probably developing an out-of-this-world set-top box that will hopefully change things the way the iPhone did.
This is why I dropped cable altogether! Plus you pay for all those channels and the are still loaded with advertising. With the advent of iPad I don't miss not having a TV to tune into anything.
This is why you are seeing a lot of "networked produced" shows instead of independent production houses pitching to networks. If the network owns the show, their network distribution is not all of their revenue.
Also, I keep on wondering how networks can produce shows and avoid the Judge Green "content xor transport" ruling that broke up Ma Bell.
----------
The conspiracy / business plan with these packages cable companies provide is that other side of the office sells advertising across a group of channels fitting a specific demographic. This is why you still see the channel bundles and why cable distributors have been fighting al la cart services for over ten years.
IMO, that is about to change.