*yawn*
These Apple/superbowl ad/Orwell posts are really getting tiresom,and are frankly just silly.
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's iTV Set for September Launch With iAd-Supported Channels, iPad as Remote?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
*yawn*
These Apple/superbowl ad/Orwell posts are really getting tiresom,and are frankly just silly.
This could be awesome
I suspect at that price it will be a more passive device, in the sense that it will not have a HD, USB inputs for external storage etc etc. It will be purely a display adaptor of sorts and network connected only. Which is fine.
The real strength even if Apple doesn't get it right is that with iOS will come the inevitable jailbreak which will give access to all the media codecs your heart desires. That's when the device will really come into it's own. I would be all over that when/if that possibility becomes a reality.
I suspect at that price it will be a more passive device, in the sense that it will not have a HD, USB inputs for external storage etc etc. It will be purely a display adaptor of sorts and network connected only. Which is fine.
The real strength even if Apple doesn't get it right is that with iOS will come the inevitable jailbreak which will give access to all the media codecs your heart desires. That's when the device will really come into it's own. I would be all over that when/if that possibility becomes a reality.
OK then, let's clarify. If other companies can sell a more complicated than this rumored product- say a 1080p playback device with a built in laser and disc spinning mechanism- at a profit for $99, I think Apple could sell what appears to be just some chips (no disc spinning, no laser, etc) for $99 and make a profit. If WD can sell their 1080p playback device without a hard drive for $99 and make a profit, I think Apple can sell their 1080p playback device without a hard drive and make a profit. Etc.
If $99 is the price, I would guess it is Apple's version of the WD box with terrific Apple software running on it. It probably comes with something like the same Apple remote that came with the originalTV or (hopefully) something with a few more buttons.
I can't see it much below $99, and I can easily see it at $149 or $199 instead of $99, but I can believe $99 enough because there haven't been other rumors of the thing at any price other than $99. Historically, I've noticed that when the rumors are too low on price, other rumors seem to come out with higher prices. Then Apple launches at something at or below those higher price estimates.
Frankly, I'm not overly hung up on price. I just hope we get something comparable to the existing
And it would quickly get my money.
You're comparing it to two vaguely similar devices, and ignoring your own stipulation of "with Apple margins". How about you compare it to the current AppleTV? The rumored iTV would be better in every way except less storage. Price estimates had the materials and manufacturing cost of the 40Gb version at over $200. Where would you save the $150 or so that you would need to have "Apple margins" on a $99 device?
This item will NOT be re-branded as iTV.
Kevin Rose is full is $h!. This device will NOT be re-branded as iTV. Legally I can't comment about what it is, but sure as hell can tell you what it isn't.
Kevin Rose is full is $h!. This device will NOT be re-branded as iTV. Legally I can't comment about what it is, but sure as hell can tell you what it isn't.
how good will the apple box be?
I am wondering if the new box will be as good as any of the already available boxes to download Netflix movies and TV series already available for less than $10 a month. With the Netflix plan you can download as much material as you want. Anything less from is not going to catch up.
I am wondering if the new
box will be as good as any of the already available boxes to download Netflix movies and TV series already available for less than $10 a month. With the Netflix plan you can download as much material as you want. Anything less from is not going to catch up.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Baldimac, what's your problem? Do you detest the idea of this new one at $99? Would that somehow hurt you? As I said, I could care less if it's $99, $199, $299 or more. You asked me how I can see it at $99 and I gave you good reasoning based on past history of how rumors of prices too low get "magically" addressed by other rumors higher so that Apple can "magically" come in at around those (higher) prices.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
So then I point out that BD players (with more hardware than this new iTV is likely to have inside it) and the very relevant WD HD set-top box (which could be a very relevant facsimile of the hardware) are both priced below $99, and apparently deliver profits for both the retailers that sell them and WD too.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
So now you want to dig up ancient cost breakdowns of the originalTV and expect me to use that to find a way to $99? Do you really think the hardware within the TV would still tally $200 if we had a cost breakdown today? It was pretty old hardware when TV was new. Do you really think that Apple can't take the same/similar iOS underlying chips in iDevices, pair them with some kind of 1080p coprocessor and put them in a little case, pad the cost of all that with Apple desired margins and not possibly arrive at a $99 price point. You mean BD player manufacturers and even a hard drive company can do something that Apple can't?
Apple makes and sells lots of stuff at prices around $99. And less. And more. If BD is a "bag of hurt" and digital downloads are the future, Apple needs to put forth an alternative now that heavily entrenches into living rooms beyond just the most Apple fanatic. One way to do that is to take the generally great- but old-TV experience and update the underpinnings of that with 1080p hardware and a few iOS-related benefits. That lets it compete head-to-head with the biggest promise of BD players.
Another way to do it is to price it so aggressively that it can be seen as a genuine competitor to BD players, Internet enhanced BD players, and boxes like those from WD, etc. Entrench tons of them in households and Apple will have a much stronger enticements for all the content producers to play ball. Don't, and the content producers will run with the more popular options like BD distribution.
I don't really care that you can't imagine $99. I can. Apparently, even reasonably good logic in several dimensions can't make it even possible for you to imagine $99. And certainly denying good comparisons with other & relevant set top boxes as well as past rumor logic won't change my mind either. However, bottom line, I don't care if it's $99 or more. If it's great, I'll buy it to replace theTV that I paid $229 for. If it's not great, I won't.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
So then I point out that BD players (with more hardware than this new iTV is likely to have inside it) and the very relevant WD HD set-top box (which could be a very relevant facsimile of the hardware) are both priced below $99, and apparently deliver profits for both the retailers that sell them and WD too.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
So now you want to dig up ancient cost breakdowns of the original
TV and expect me to use that to find a way to $99? Do you really think the hardware within the TV would still tally $200 if we had a cost breakdown today? It was pretty old hardware when TV was new. Do you really think that Apple can't take the same/similar iOS underlying chips in iDevices, pair them with some kind of 1080p coprocessor and put them in a little case, pad the cost of all that with Apple desired margins and not possibly arrive at a $99 price point. You mean BD player manufacturers and even a hard drive company can do something that Apple can't?Apple makes and sells lots of stuff at prices around $99. And less. And more. If BD is a "bag of hurt" and digital downloads are the future, Apple needs to put forth an alternative now that heavily entrenches into living rooms beyond just the most Apple fanatic. One way to do that is to take the generally great- but old-
TV experience and update the underpinnings of that with 1080p hardware and a few iOS-related benefits. That lets it compete head-to-head with the biggest promise of BD players. Another way to do it is to price it so aggressively that it can be seen as a genuine competitor to BD players, Internet enhanced BD players, and boxes like those from WD, etc. Entrench tons of them in households and Apple will have a much stronger enticements for all the content producers to play ball. Don't, and the content producers will run with the more popular options like BD distribution.
I don't really care that you can't imagine $99. I can. Apparently, even reasonably good logic in several dimensions can't make it even possible for you to imagine $99. And certainly denying good comparisons with other & relevant set top boxes as well as past rumor logic won't change my mind either. However, bottom line, I don't care if it's $99 or more. If it's great, I'll buy it to replace the
TV that I paid $229 for. If it's not great, I won't.
The market doesn't need yet another proprietary, closed device.
AppleTV/iTV is pointless unless it can play formats other than iTunes/App Store content.
The minute iTV can play what VLC can play (or convert files for me at ease), it will be a no-go for me and I'd wager most others.
AppleTV/iTV is pointless unless it can play formats other than iTunes/App Store content.
The minute iTV can play what VLC can play (or convert files for me at ease), it will be a no-go for me and I'd wager most others.
lol. Since when to British tv channels have any voice in US marketing decisions or copyrights? I assume this is what you're referring to. Apple may have to keep the name "AppleTV" in GB, but that's as far as that will go.
I am wondering if the new
iTV is not an all-saving device. It's just the newest arm of the uber-controlling iTunes media empire. You won't be able to watch what you want, when you want. You'll be able to watch iTunes content. Period.
Yea. I'll stick with plugging my MBP into my TV so that I can watch ANYTHING I WANT.
this needs to happen, and i hope it's good. i never bought an apple tv b/c i didn't see a need for it. but i might actually use this if it has apps, and interacts with my iPad. we'll see
His post is more like a wish list and what he expects Apple should do given its current position from an angel investor perspective.
I won't hold my breadth for every one of those features next month.
iAd supported channels would be nice - but won't happen that easily or that soon. May be in a couple of years. Not next month.
That being said, I would say that it makes absolute sense for the next iteration of AppleTV to be iOS based and take advantage of the deep ecosystem.
But one thing for sure: The update will be the first iteration of Apple TV as a serious business and not a mere hobby.
I won't hold my breadth for every one of those features next month.
iAd supported channels would be nice - but won't happen that easily or that soon. May be in a couple of years. Not next month.
That being said, I would say that it makes absolute sense for the next iteration of AppleTV to be iOS based and take advantage of the deep ecosystem.
But one thing for sure: The update will be the first iteration of Apple TV as a serious business and not a mere hobby.
So the box is $99 but the remote is at least $499? I don't see that working well, except for those people who have already purchased an iPad.
And the "remote" can't go out (of the home) with you unless you are single living alone, because then the rest of the family couldn't enjoy the iTV without it.
I do think it's time for a next-gen
With the iOS platform, it at least implies that there could be custom apps for it, which would be 1000 times more open than the current version (requiring hacks to just make it do a few more basic things). Apps would open the door for at least the potential of feeder services beyond just iTunes, which would also make it a lot more appealing.
A few things I hope it includes:
- option to use local storage without having to have a computer turned on, or, at least the opportunity to use local storage attached to one or more household computers (like the current one can do),
- option for hardware expansion even if that means one or more simple USB ports, so that companies like Elgato could add some functionality desired by some buyers that Apple doesn't seem to want to build in (this would at least leave room for other companies to offer local HD TV tuners, DVR and/or BD add-ons for those interested in that kind of thing, which would be a great way to also address local news, live network sports, etc).
- 1080p output even if there is no 1080p iTunes content to rent/buy, nor no upgrades to U.S. broadband capable of transporting a lot of 1080p video files for some time to come. (The current heavily compressed) 720p is not good enough for everyone, but a 1080p platform would give the "720p is all I want or need" crowd every bit of what they want, while shutting up the rest of us that want a little more than minimal 720p. Everyone wins if the hardware is reasonably future proofed.
I'll also assume that it will come with a basic set of key connections, hopefully including:
...pretty much just like the current version.
- hdmi
- component video
- digital audio out
- stereo audio out
- 1+ "normal" USB port
- gigabit ethernet for wired networks
Beyond this, it seems everyone is hoping for a cable (bill) killer where we can get all of our favorite shows without commercials via some kind of iTunes subscription for a lot less than we pay for cable or satt. I like the concept but just don't see any way that it is going to be permitted to happen- especially when our broadband pipes are owned by the same companies that like to be paid (again) for pumping cable into our homes through those same pipes. We can dream all we want, but I know what I would do if I was Comcast, Time Warner, etc and saw this kind of a threat to my lucrative cable TV revenue stream- especially with it dependent on being delivered through "my" cable.
Who says it wont have an option to be a GSM/CDMA iTV using 3G/4G speeds? But i do agree its kinda ironic lol...
I wonder why people keep repeating the idea that it runs iOS. Is that simply because it will be A4 based, or is that because it comes with a touch screen?
The Apple TV never had a display, but Apple might want to change this since touch is the new hip... for as long as it comes with a remote.
No touch screen = no iOS?
The Apple TV never had a display, but Apple might want to change this since touch is the new hip... for as long as it comes with a remote.
No touch screen = no iOS?
no, Remote controls iTunes. Do you even own an iphone, ipod or any Apple product?
You might want to verify your facts before you insult someone. The same Apple Remote application does in fact control AppleTV both for music and video. It even includes a full touch screen replacement for the IR remote, I know because I have done it.
Would it be a problem for ITV (the UK TV channel) to have a TV series called itunes?
I think it will be a similar analogy to the current Apple TV. It currently has an Intel processor, and runs a stripped down and modified version of OS/X, but you can't really call it a Mac out of the box.
The iTV will probably run with an Apple A4 processor, and a modified version of iOS, but its interface will be optimized for a TV screen. It will come with its own App Store, and have gesture support built-in, but I'm guessing that it will just come with an Apple Remote in the box for basic navigation, and gesture control can be activated with the Remote app for iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If it has Bluetooth, then the Magic Trackpad could also be an option.
The reported low price ($99), App support, and integration with other iOS devices could make this a big hit.
Would it be a problem for ITV (the UK TV channel) to have a TV series called itunes?
I hope so and I hope that Apple sues that crappy TV company out of existence. /Hate ITV, Simon Cowell, Emmerdale and Coronation Street...
I don't have a problem. I'm trying to have a discussion. What makes you think I'm hurt just because I disagree with you?
You've dismissed ideas in this thread because they don't fit with the $99 price point with Apple margins. The hardware described doesn't even fit with a $99 price point unless it's subsidzed or a loss leader (which Apple doesn't do) or at cost (which Apple came close to with the current AppleTV).
It wasn't good enough for me, because I actually looked at the price of the rumored components instead of using rumors as evidence. An A4 processor and 16Gb of Flash memory and you are already over $50 in materials
First, no indication in your examples of "Apple margins." Second, neither of those devices is capable of running iOS or similar.
So now you want to dig up ancient cost breakdowns of the original
No, but I don't think that better components would total one-third the price two years later.
It was pretty old hardware when
Obviously, no, I don't think that is possible. Look at the iPhone 4 cost breakdown. Take out the screen and the stuff you don't need. Add in HDMI, component, stereo, and digital audio outputs. Gigabit ethernet. I don't see how it comes out to the $50-$60 range that would result in "Apple margins". Like I said, the A4 processor and 16Gb Flash memory total just over $52. WiFi is another $7.80.
Not can't, won't. Apple doesn't have the same requirements as either of the two devices you described.
Apple makes and sells lots of stuff at prices around $99. And less. And more. If BD is a "bag of hurt" and digital downloads are the future, Apple needs to put forth an alternative now that heavily entrenches into living rooms beyond just the most Apple fanatic. One way to do that is to take the generally great- but old-
Another way to do it is to price it so aggressively that it can be seen as a genuine competitor to BD players, Internet enhanced BD players, and boxes like those from WD, etc. Entrench tons of them in households and Apple will have a much stronger enticements for all the content producers to play ball. Don't, and the content producers will run with the more popular options like BD distribution.
I agree with all of that.
I don't really care that you can't imagine $99. I can. Apparently, even reasonably good logic in several dimensions can't make it even possible for you to imagine $99. And certainly denying good comparisons with other & relevant set top boxes as well as past rumor logic won't change my mind either. However, bottom line, I don't care if it's $99 or more. If it's great, I'll buy it to replace the
I can imagine $99. Just not with the specs that are being discussed and Apple margins. I can see them selling them near materials and manufacturing cost with the minimum specs being discussed with the intent to make up R&D, advertising, and other overhead through rentals and subscriptions. I could also see them sold at $99 only with a subscription and more without.
no, Remote controls iTunes. Do you even own an iphone, ipod or any Apple product?
Is this dude serious? He doesn't know that the remote app controls ATV? Ha!
I currently have Charter internet with no tv service. I work for Comcast and I know that you can get internet without TV, however it is more expensive that way (usually $12 dollars more expensive) making the total internet (without promotions) being around $60 (or more with tax and modem fees). Which is, ironically, around what you would be spending with a basic tv service. So really you don't save any money adding it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You seem fixated on just this one little piece (the rumored price), and continue to imply that it is virtually impossible.
Perhaps we should clarify some math then? Some of your comments reads like "Apple margins" is some hard number, when in fact, they are merely a percentage of sales. Apple seems to like margins in the 30%-40% range. For the sake of this, let's dismiss the idea of trying to price this on the low end and cut it down the middle. That would be 35%. What does the case, chips, ports, etc have to cost to yield 35% margins at $99?
About $74. As you suggest, "an A4 processor and 16GB Flash memory" is already over $50. Can they add some standard ports, a case, and maybe a graphics coprocessor, remote, packaging, etc for the other $24? Could they do better than $50 on the A4 and memory buffer? For example, does it need 16GB if it is an all-streaming device?
Again, look to a device like the WD example. It is a set top box. It has a case and lots of ports. It has a 1080p chip set inside and a processor to run it. It comes in a package, with a remote. There's apparently enough profit in it for distributors and for WD, while Apple tends to act as a major distributor and source (taking both pieces of the profit on direct sales).
Here it is retailing right now at a named distributor for $89.95: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Digital_WDBABY0000NBK_NESN_WD_TV_LIVE_HD.html
...and I didn't even shop around much to find that price. If we assume some markup to give B&H some profit, and some profit for WD, $89.95 is not so far above $74.
Can Apple not put some chips in a case with some standard ports- much like WD is doing with this product- put that in a box so that the total unit cost comes in at $74? I would guess they can.
And $74 works with a margin of 35%. Why not be a bit more aggressive to try to make it to $99 if it comes in a bit above $74? Even if they trimmed their margin on this to the low end of their desired range, the dollars involved on millions of units sold would not have much of an effect on Apple's overall average margin.
Lastly (but probably unlikely), Apple could take the razor blade approach and wash out much of the margin on the hardware, with a goal to make up for it on the software sales. Lots of iTV's in the home will be a tempting vehicle through which to buy iTunes content on demand... and maybe this iTunes subscription program. On the other hand, price it too high (again) for the masses, don't sell many of them (again), allow other internet-connected devices to entrench in volume, and have a near ZERO chance of the owners of those other devices buying/renting their media via iTunes through the little boxes connected to their HDTVs.
Since I'm not privy to the exact margins made on other devices, there's no way to nail this completely. However, the above takes a pretty good shot at using a current retail price to imply the potential. If we assume other companies make profits on sales of their products too, we can build some margin into that price, which then means the cost of the unit must be something south of that price. It's not a long way from that price to a $74 target.
How do you know that neither device is capable of running iOS? iOS is just software. Software can be made to run on almost any decent chip set. I'm 100% confident that since WD has a UI running on top of the hardware in that WD box, Apple could get their iOS UI running on top of that hardware... if they wanted to do so.
The A4 is not some special, super high cost chip. Apple is using it because it hits the right compromise between cost and what they want it to be able to do. If A4 came at too high a premium, the iDevices would be using something else (just like the previous generations of Apple iDevices)... and iOS would be running on that something else.
We don't need to pretend that the A4 is some vastly superior chip that requires a vastly superior cost and thus retail price, just to imply that $99 is impossible. If Apple wants to hit $99 with their margin, they just make iOS run on other hardware... if A4 or similar makes it such that the retail price will miss the target. iOS is not married to the A4; it can run on chips in iDevices before there was an A4.
I believe the tech is now at last 6 years old (or close to it); the
TV is almost 4 years old itself. I'd encourage you to go look up those parts, in volume, and see if this is true or false. Perhaps scarcity of old parts that nobody wants to use much anymore could make this prove out (like Space Shuttle tech weaker than Commodore 64s costing hundreds of thousands of dollars because NASA is the sole customer).But again, looking at something like the WD live product, you have the hardware for 1080p in the box, retailing for less than $99. Apple UI is superior to WD UI, but that's just software.
If Apple follows the example they set with the first gen
TV, they won't use the latest & greatest tech in this iTV. The first gen hit when core duo were dominating, but there's no core duo in it (instead it uses some weaker- aka cheaper- Pentium chip- Pentium D I think). The first gen hit when there were lots of higher power graphics coprocessors, but they used a minimal (cheap) processor that was just enough to cover the desired specs. I believe there's only nominal ram in the first gen- just enough to buffer some video, but I recall it not being very much at all. Etc. This iTV doesn't have to roar vs. iPhone 4... it just has to be "enough" to hit (hopefully) specs superior to the 2006 spec. I don't suspect they would start with a finished iPhone and start stripping it down. I suspect they would start with nothing and start building it up. In the end, my guess is the the iTV won't use iDevice apps already in the store, but probably have it's own apps. Why? Because how you interact with this device will likely be different than how you interact with all the other iDevices. It that proves out, it is even more distanced from the current iDevice cousins: no touch, no battery, no retina display, no memory above "just enough", no gyros, no 3G, no sim card, no docking port, etc.
On this, we can agree. I can see that too. I can also see it being possible to hit $99 without other obligations. But, I don't really care if it comes out at $99, or $199, or $299. Lately, I've been wishing they would just release the latest
TV UI as the new "Front Row" and I'd probably just pay up for a mini dedicated to this function. Yes, that's overkill for such a specific purpose, but I'm not really that hung up on price. I would like to see a 2010+ next-gen box capable of 1080p playback, and hopefully a bit more open (apps, maybe USB add-ons from third parties) than the TV I have now.