Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Trip is a toad

The Tripper doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I would never, ever believe a single thing that clown had to say. CnBS drags him out from under a rock every once in a while when they want to push some worthless crap and want someone with an accent to do it. He never should be trusted. (Legal disclaimer: JMO)
 
It would have to have some sort of proprietary technology that the competition does not have such as Retina, airplay, Wi-Fi receiver, facetime, wi-fi charging for iOS devices for it to do well against major TV manufactures.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

As much as I love Apple, I don't see them making a better TV set than Samsung.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

As much as I love Apple, I don't see them making a better TV set than Samsung.

That wouldn't be too difficult.
 
soon
there will be
Apple tube amplifier
Apple electrostatic speakers
Apple monster cables
 
If Apple manufactures HDTV then that will be a surprise. :eek: The market for that is crowded and the technology is patented to the hilt. IMHO, Apple, if they don't partner, will be in for another round of legal disputes - Sony and Samsung have shown that way. Good luck Apple as this ain't like the rest of the markets you've entered. ;)

I use my 24" iMac as a TV already with Netflix and DVDs so it is possible that they are headed in that direction. :D
 
I'll buy one. Probably the mid-level version.

And I know nothing about it except the reputation of the company rumored to be making it.

:D
 
I hope Apple continues to release stand alone versions of AppleTV because I just bought my TV, it's not being replaced anytime soon. I waited an eternity for the technology to be perfected and now Apple may be getting into the game.

I'm pretty sure they will continue to release a stand alone version, it's become one of my favorite media devices.
 
I see your point but I remember the same arguments being made when there were rumours of Apple releasing a mobile phone in 2006. "Why would they want to enter a saturated commodity market like that with such thin margins?"

Then look what happened.

The phone market, however, was different - customers were shielded from the actual price, in the US at least, bu contracts that subsidized the price of the iPhone to bring it in line with other high end phones - at least after the first iteration.

In addition, theres's such things as Blu-Rays high - def content management DRM to contend with. Despite Job's dismissing blue-ray as a "big bag of hurt" it currently is a very popular standard and trying to sell a TV, at a premium, that won't play blu-ray in HD.

I can see Apple working a licensing deal for Apple TV - moving it more into the mainstream and letting them reap the content sales.

Of course, building in Apple TV will put Apple on an even greater collision course with the bandwidth providers - Apple will want them to keep big fat pipes open and low cost so apple can deliver content that in many cases will compete with theirs. Why buy many premium channels when you can rent the content for a lot less? Or gene get much of your free OTA type content for less at rental prices (or streamed legitimately from the web) and drop much of your cable subscriptions? Add in some DVR capabilities and Apple TV is a very real threat to cable companies.

I think bandwidth control will be the real battle found for deciding who makes what from the internet - the content companies want cheap big pipes so they can charge more for the content while the ISPs want to extract money from every byte the carry. By capping bandwidth they are forcing a showdown with content providers over how to split the spoils.
 
I really, REALLY doubt it. I can't see how Apple can make their traditional profit in this extremely competitive, commodity-type market of HDTVs.

Why not? They can price it at double or triple the competition and the fanboys will be camping out to buy them.

I just can't see them producing a product with enough features to make it worthwhile, and at a decent price.

Why, that's what they have done until recently. Until this year, all of their computers were under-specced and overpriced, now they are just slightly overpriced in most cases.

The only way I would buy an Apple TV is if it was some super-high resolution (not offered by competitors) otherwise there are simply too many good TV's that would cost a fraction of the price.

No you will buy it anyway. That is what a true Appleonian would do.
 
It makes more sense that Apple would license Apple TV to TV manufacturers and have them integrated than for Apple to produced their own TVs

Less risk - more reward.

There are too many sizes/styles and people do need choices since people have different wall/room spaces.

I could be wrong. I just don't see it.
 
Breakdown

Here are a few notes and explanation why this will never happen.

Margins

Almost all of Apple's product and business operate at very high margins, certainly much higher than most of the electronics industry.

They can charge these margins with the Mac because of its control over both HW and SW with the Mac, and because of (at least the perceived) the benefits over Windows.

Apple can charge high margins on the iPhone - JUST because the way the cell phone industry works. The phone companies actually pay for a lot of the phone real price because they lock you into a 2-year contract. That brings the (perceived) price to the customer down to something reasonable. But Apple still makes its margins.

And just to be complete...

The iTunes store is a cash cow (once you allow for the infrastructure to run it). Apple was able to effectively create an ecosystem which encompassed all major contents providers (record companies) because there were only like 6 record companies to deal with! Plus Apple struck these deals at a time when the music business was in tough shape. The music industry stuck its head in the sand when it came to the 'net, and saw its revenues go in the tank. Apple provided them a way to utilize the 'net and make money. (BTW, Lets face it, a big part of the success of the iTunes store was due to timing. If Apple tried to do it sooner, the record companies would not have yet perceived that they had a REAL problem and they never would have signed up. If Apple waited longer, too many others, i.e. Amazon, would have been in the market already. Apple's timing was perfect.)

Now, regarding an Apple TV...

Apple would never be able to directly compete against the Samsungs, Sonys, Vizios, etc. They would get killed on price. First off Apple would NEVER consider getting into a HW business with razor-thin margins like most HDTV manufacturers deal with. So Apple would not have price points near that of the current suppliers.

So, you are thinking .... what if Apple were to come out with something so cool, so awesome, so much better, that people would pay a 40% premium for a TV that came from Apple.

That's a lovely thought. What if Apple had an Apple Store for TV programs?

That would be really tough to do. Sure, Apple has done something like that with MOVIES, but again the movie industry is fairly self-contained like music, you can get deal with the 5-6 largest distributors and basically provide 95% of the retail content out there if you want.

But BROADCAST TV and CABLE TV are different from movies. There are many many players involved.

So the only real advantage that Apple could provide in a TV (to justify its 40% margins) would be:

Ad-free content - Which it cant do because there are too many content providers to deal with.

Another possibility would be that Apple would make it easier to hook the TV up to stuff. But let's get real. Apple would have to defines interfaces that work with hundreds of existing BD players, stereos, etc. Those standards are defined. Plus, lets REALLY get real .... although hooking up stuff can be a pain, its a non-recurring pain. People go through their challenges getting everything to work, but once its hooked up and it works, it works, and the connectivity problem is nullified. People wont pay a 40% premium just for this convenience.

So, there you go.

By the way, for you newbies out there, there already WAS an Apple TV many years ago. It tanked.

So as fo a NEW incarnation of an "Apple TV" ...

It will never happen.
 
No you will buy it anyway. That is what a true Appleonian would do.

Unfortunately I have more sense than money. The iPhone and iPod are just about the only Apple products I find to be worth the price. That said, if an Apple tv was priced well for it's features I'd consider it, but history tells me it would be horrendously overpriced.
 
You cant compare Apples cinema display with a random "1080p LCD". Yes, it is overpriced, but not as much as one could think. TN panels are very different from ips panels (which Apple uses, made by LG if im not mistaken), both in price and functionality. Anyway, you'd have to compare it with something like the Dell u2711 or whatever the LG monitor that i cant remember the name of is called.

Apple being Apple and Apple consumers being willing to pay extra they could probably succeed. I wouldnt dream of buying one though.

Consumers would pay double because it says Apple on it and I think that you will buy one too. :D

It had better be 1080p if Apple wants to compete in the current TV market.

Why, most of their products aren't cutting edge. Remember, Apple isn't about specs. If you're lucky, it will be 720p, or it could even be standard definition and people will be lined up for days to buy one at triple the price.

Apple would never make a price-leader or even a mid-market TV. Apple is about giving a premium experience - at a premium price. The high end is exactly where Apple would go.



Apple does not sell hardware at a loss to make it up later in iTunes rentals and purchases. From what we know Apple makes about a 30% profit on all hardware sales. That 30% would price them way out of the market.

They make 30% net profit. On an individual item it probably 50% gross profit. Apple customers don't care, they pay happily.

I likely wouldn't believe it even if I did see it.

Apple makes their money off the hardware, and I am sure there are people who would pay a premium for an Apple-branded television solely because it was an Apple-branded television, but if :apple:tv is "just a hobby", what would an Apple TV be? A passing fancy?

Unless it does 3D without the glasses, of course. :cool:

I think you are correct. They will sell a few million sets just because of their name.

How are people even considering this? How can Apple improve the existing model?

Apple TV is a hobby. This isn't going to change soon. I bought my 46" for under 1k. Samsung, works great. I can't get video of a higher resolution easily. Why would I buy something more "premium"?

Apply is killing physical media. They don't yet support 1080p. Why in the f#ck would they move into a crowded market where they have not footing to improve?

As long as it has that Apple logo on it, that's all that matters. If Steve wants us to have an Apple tv, we will buy one no matter the cost.

Did someone just say overpriced?
Risky move if true, but if someone could pull it off, who'd be better then Apple.
Even if low profit or none, they might "lure" new customers into the Apple world of devices and get em hocked.

They will sell it at a huge profit like all of their other hardware. They don't produce loss leaders to get people in the door.

Thank you! Years ago when I worked at Circuit City people would come in wanting Bose because they heard they were the best, so we would show them Bose, then something else we sold like Kef, needless to say no one ever walked out with Bose.

KEP is fairly high end goods, Circuit City never sold KEF. They were only sold at good retailers-specialty shops.
 
I doubt it as well. TV market is very competitive; there are too many sizes and features to cover. Price and features would need to be very good to attract buyers, unless Apple is not planning to aim at the videophile market.

In reality nobody knows. Apple must have a very good plan and strategy otherwise they wouldn't do it. Maybe it succeeds.

I wouldn't mind a 40" LED Retina-Display backlit 240Hz Cinema Display with several TV inputs (HDMI, Component, Composite?, SPDIF, etc), built-in upgradable AppleTV with Instant-Replay video Buffer, and maybe a Digital TV Tuner (which becomes practically obsolete when you have Satellite or CableTV Service, as you would need to buy their receivers).
 
No you will buy it anyway. That is what a true Appleonian would do.

"Appleonian?"

Nibblonians.jpg
 
Instead of $700 for a Vizio with built in apps and crappy interface, I'd be ridiculously willing to pay $900 or $1000 for an Apple TV with an interface the likes of what Apple designs. Not to mention the hardware design that will come with it. Many others will too. I mean, geez, we pay extra for computers, iphones, ipods, etc. Why wouldn't we shell out for a superior TV? And if they're bringing the tech of their monitors, they would be amazing. Apple has the best monitors I've used, hands down.

Sony TVs come at a premium. People are buying them up. So if the Apple TV has something extra. Some better way to interface with the net, your computer, etc. then it'd be a boom.

If a Vizio is $700, the comparable Apple model will be $1500. Ditto for Soney. Maybe you've never used a really good monitor? There is a world besides everything Apple.


Hopefully they focus on picture quality.

They will focus on design and simplicity. Apple customers aren't too good with tech products so it has to be easy to use first and foremost and it must also be pretty to look at. Form over function.

Will it come in a matte version? No.

Will it play Blu-Ray disks? No.

You will only be able to watch content purchased from Apple. No over the air, no cable, no FIOS. It will only be Steve tv.
 
High price myth

Last time I checked Apple introduced a tablet at about one half the price most estimated. And further, Apple sells ultraportable notebooks for about the same price as it costs competitors to manufacture them. Seems to me Apple is rapidly becoming the price leader as well as the quality leader. Accordingly, an Apple HDTV will likely feature advanced technology at a price below what others can offer.
 
Why, most of their products aren't cutting edge. Remember, Apple isn't about specs. If you're lucky, it will be 720p, or it could even be standard definition and people will be lined up for days to buy one at triple the price.

1080p is not cutting edge... Also, is there any particular reason you're systematically replying to every single post here?
 
It's inevitable

An Apple television is only a matter of time. They know all about displays, they have manufacturing completely covered in the Far East, and they have Apple TV.

Why have Apple always described Apple TV as "a hobby"? As if they couldn't care less about it? A bit of a game? Obviously it will next be built into a unit, joint-manuafactured and designed from the ground up.

We can already imagine Steve Jobs' script when announcing Apple televisions... "We always called Apple TV a hobby. Until now."

*applause*

They'd sell in their millions. MILLIONS!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

AppleScruff1 said:
Instead of $700 for a Vizio with built in apps and crappy interface, I'd be ridiculously willing to pay $900 or $1000 for an Apple TV with an interface the likes of what Apple designs. Not to mention the hardware design that will come with it. Many others will too. I mean, geez, we pay extra for computers, iphones, ipods, etc. Why wouldn't we shell out for a superior TV? And if they're bringing the tech of their monitors, they would be amazing. Apple has the best monitors I've used, hands down.

Sony TVs come at a premium. People are buying them up. So if the Apple TV has something extra. Some better way to interface with the net, your computer, etc. then it'd be a boom.

If a Vizio is $700, the comparable Apple model will be $1500. Ditto for Soney. Maybe you've never used a really good monitor? There is a world besides everything Apple.


Hopefully they focus on picture quality.

They will focus on design and simplicity. Apple customers aren't too good with tech products so it has to be easy to use first and foremost and it must also be pretty to look at. Form over function.

Will it come in a matte version? No.

Will it play Blu-Ray disks? No.

You will only be able to watch content purchased from Apple. No over the air, no cable, no FIOS. It will only be Steve tv.

Why do you have such a bone to pick with apple? I know your just trolling but it's getting old, go post your thoughts anti-apple else where.
 
16 speakers - that is where you lost me. there is no way i could picture  making something like that. That would mean wires and specific locations.... nope that is totally not the way they do things. A surroundbar, maybe. But Apple likes the minimalist design.

Perhaps a Hi-Fi Soundbar!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.