Best Buy Dreams Up a $1499 42-Inch 'Apple HDTV' for Customer Feedback

[JAT]

Plasma TV's are cheaper than true LED TVs.
True LED TVs cost a fortune.

LED backlit LCD's are complete garbage.

There are 4 types of LEDs, in my view:

LCD with LED edge backlight
LCD with full LED backlight with micro-dimming (Samsung 7000 or higher class, for instance)
True, full LED panel (no LCD)
OLED and variants

The last 2 don't exist in a 40" panel. Not consumer production models. You really need to identify LED properly when discussing TVs, because these are all different technologies.

Here is a report of OLED, it may actually ship to a couple people this year. Not $1500.

And good luck even searching for a true, non-LCD LED panel. The LCD-with-LED-backlight TVs drown out searches and it's very difficult to wade through the billions of Google hits. The easiest to find would be projectors, but none of them are shipping in HD resolution, yet.


I would say, unless Apple ships an OLED TV of decent size, the display hardware will be pointless. Much rather have a little box (or full computer) plugged into my current TV than a new set.

 

[ctdonath]

"Only $XX, new HDTV required but not included"

<shrug> Same with the current ATV. I just had to explain that to someone enamored of the device, but still running an SD CRT. Comes a point you have to come into the 21st Century for 21st Century technology.

Customer: "I bought this new TV, plugged it into my HDMI port and nothing happened"
Apple: "Do you have an HDMI MHL port?"
Customer: "What?"

What? indeed. HDMI provides power - maybe not much, but maybe enough. Many TVs supply enough; with creative low-power engineering the paltry 55mA HDMI spec requires might be enough. If not, include a micro-USB or 30-pin port to connect with an optional tiny wall adapter (Apple sells a nice 1" power cube).

Upshot is take an iPod Touch, remove the screen, buttons, camera, mic, and battery, add a HDMI plug, and there's your TV3 with very few remaining problems to solve.

 

[damir00]

Yes, but Apple has been entering markets where there has been a real dissatisfaction with the existing offerings.

People aren't dissatisfied with their TVs.

They're dissatisfied with their set top boxes and cable providers.

 

[rjohnstone]

I'm still amazed at how many people here don't know the difference between an LED back lit LCD TV and a true LED TV.
A lot of the price comparisons shown are for LED back lit LCDs.

True LED TVs are not cheap.
A 40" LED Samsung will run you $1,500. (yes, they do make a 40" version in true LED, 6500 series)
That same TV in an LED/LCD configuration will run you $700.

 

[JAT]

That's par???

A 55 inch, 3D, ultra high resolution digital tv is par? That's some rarified air.

Maybe his par is 1.

 

[Clive At Five]

Once again, this TV is not going to happen. I've argued this MANY times before. If Apple wants to reinvent the TV, they just need to make the Apple TV box the hub into which your TV periphs are plugged. Your cable box, DVD/Blu-Ray, Game Consoles, etc. Then Apple controls the UI from top to bottom. No need to force people to throw out their TVs, or wait for INSANELY SLOW turnover. If you thought mobile phone turnover/adoption was slow, wait until you see TV turnover...

Secondly... Are there people here SERIOUSLY thinking that Apple would sell a 42" TV for LESS THAN $1499??? TROLOLOLOLOL.....

-Clive

 

[LimeiBook86]

I agree a theoretical $1499 price is way too high. Yes Apple needs to take it's cut, but in order for people to consider buying an Apple TV set they need to price they pretty well. Almost all sets (even the bargain ones!) have some sort of internet connectivity and "apps". Apple needs to offer the same features, and more, with their polish for around the same price. I paid a bit under $800 for a 42" Panasonic Plasma set years ago, I can't see the price being much higher than that, especially due to the fallen prices in HDTV sets. Yes Apple needs to make a buck, but I can't see it being that much.

 

[JAT]

I'm still amazed at how many people here don't know the difference between an LED back lit LCD TV and a true LED TV.
A lot of the price comparisons shown are for LED back lit LCDs.

True LED TVs are not cheap.
A 40" LED Samsung will run you $1,500. (yes, they do make a 40" version in true LED, 6500 series)
That same TV in an LED/LCD configuration will run you $700.

Uh, the 6500 series is not even full backlit, you need 7000 or higher for that. Unless there is some other 6500 series.

 

[Rogifan]

Is there anything, if made by Apple, people would not want or wouldn't be curious about?

I mean, considering how they usually reinvent anything they do, how they apply their best design and engineering practice and love to their products, would you really NOT be interested in Apple anything?

Would you say no to 42" Apple TV? Would you say no to Apple Toilet? I'm sure it'd the coolest toilet out there.

Jony Ive designed toilets when he was at Tangerine.

 

[rstansby]

Or pay $89 for an ATV.

Even if you don't already own a TV, $1500 sounds like a lot.

The most expensive 42" TV at Best Buy today is $1200.00
Apple TV $100.00

 

[ladymacintosh]

There is virtually no incentive for me to buy this thing. I already have an ATV2 and a ROKU2- which I can play Angry Birds on. So, yes, I can imagine playing Angry Birds on the big screen, and frankly it's not that interesting to me.

 

[jlc1978]

You would rather flip through a guide than say "Siri, what is showing on Fox at 2:30 AM on Tuesday, November 30th, 2012?"? I guess we can agree to disagree then.

Well, if I can do that on my iPhone why do I need a TV to do it? Granted, saying "change channels" or "Record it" would due nice but is it a killer feature? IMHO, no.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

<shrug> Same with the current ATV. I just had to explain that to someone enamored of the device, but still running an SD CRT. Comes a point you have to come into the 21st Century for 21st Century technology.

Big difference not be marginalized away. It's not the same to compare the tiny pool of people that might happen to have one of the few sets with HDMI MHL to the big pool of people that probably have at least a 720p HDTV-ready TV right now. The latter is in lots of homes. The former barely exists.

You are correct that the current TV comes with a new HDTV requirement for that particular kind of person (who is still locked into an SD only television). But I doubt the guy clinging to an SD CRT is in the market for either kind of TV... even more so if it will also require him to buy a new television too. I'd speculate that if he buys a new HDTV, it's because his old CRT has conked out- not because he is following Apple innovations.

What? indeed. HDMI provides power - maybe not much, but maybe enough. Many TVs supply enough; with creative low-power engineering the paltry 55mA HDMI spec requires might be enough.

Don't you think Roku would have gone that way if they could get enough power out of a regular HDMI port? Why would they choose to limit their latest & greatest innovation at CES to only being able to be used by those who are also willing to purchase a brand new HDTV with it? Hypothetically, you may be right. Practically? I think Roku would have done that if it is possible. In this area, Apple is not so superior that only Apple could figure out how to do this. There's plenty- even at this site- that can argue in many ways, Roku is doing this set-top box thing better than Apple (so far).

 

[MadJasper]

It is a DREAM if BestBuy thinks this would be anyless than $2499.00. No way a 42 inch iPad with a TV tuner goes for $1500.00.

 

[jwdsail]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

One thing I keep reading here is how many "decent" TVs are avail at this price or that..

Really?

I find that even the best TVs at the highest prices are barely what I would call "decent".

From blotchy screens, flashlight corners, poor up scaling of 720p and 1080i to nonexisitant grays.. Barely any tv out there passes as "decent".

Retailers keep the brightness cranked all the way and mainly demo ultra saturated animated content in stores to hide these issues. Then you get it home and it looks like crap.

Apple could do very well in the tv market if all they do is deliver a full color led backlit LCD w/ local dimming and none of the above issues in a price range similar to the Sony XBR series TVs.

 

[DanHolderman]

I got to admit: I would love to have an Apple HDTV but.....

Apple will need to offer a TV that is 55" and larger for me to convert. I can't "upgrade" by "downsizing" my TV.

 

[jlc1978]

Your problem is is using terms like, “good enough” and in thinking in terms of the bottom of the barrel market, which Apple is not a part of. An Apple television set would not be meant for people looking for $600 or $700 tv’s. No more than Apple computers are meant for people looking for $300 or $400 computers. Sure, you can get a functional computer for $300 but its not going to be the best designed computer with the best quality parts and features….same thing for tv’s. A $600 tv will get the job done. But you don’t get the best picture quality/contrast ratio, panel type, display engine, etc.

I think you missed my point. I agree Apple goes for the higher end; but the question is "Is there enough of a market for an Apple TV to be a product that has any significant impact on Apple's financials, or is it juts a hobbyist market like the iTV." I think it's the latter, and Apple may dabble in it but it won't be anything of importance to them.

I also think your computer analogy is invalid - people buy computers to fit a specific need; which generally means a specific OS. With a TV, for most buyers, once you get beyond a certain quality/price point everything else isn't with the added cost. A better picture may be worth an extra $100 but won't be worth an extra $500 for most buyers. For some it may, but is that market large enough to make an Apple TV a success like the iPhone or the iPad. I doubt it.

When thinking about the potential pricing of an Apple branded television, first think about the pricing of Apple branded computers. To me, $1,400 for a 40” tv seems reasonable. And for an Apple branded television, it seems downright cheap. I would expect an entry level 40” Apple television to be around $1,799 and go up for there. A 55” Apple television to be $2,100, etc. These prices seem more reasonable.

Computers are a different market - a Mac commands a premium because of OSX, as does the iPhone/iPad/iPod because of iOS. You can't get them elsewhere. TV's, OTOH, deliver content; content that is available on any TV. Can Apple deliver a compelling and unique set of contact that justifies the higher price? That remains to be seen.

 

[milo]

3D in the cinema was responsible for a huge amount of revenue last year.

3D was a big moneymaker in the first year or so after Avatar came out. Since then, the proportion of money made from 3D showings versus 2D has been dropping like a rock. These days most 3D movies make much more money from 2D showings than 3D.

There will probably still be some 3D content for a while but I suspect it will be fewer films (mainly animation). Probably something for more of a special occasion a few times a year but that's about it. I suspect also audiences won't be willing to pay extra for it and once that happens the studios and theatres won't be willing to create the content.

 

[Glideslope]

Apple will find a way to sue best buy over this.

No. This was intentional. This is where Apple decides to make it more than a Hobby, or not. At $1499 the question is not how many in here think it is ridiculously high. (IMO, just a tad high for a 42" LED/ATV)

Rather, what is the entire market, and how many do they need to sell to turn a profit.

Or, use some cash to lower the price to go for market share. AKA, The Kindle.
Make your money on the services for a change, not the hardware?

 

[Silverbird0000]

This is inaccurate. I just paid $1100 for a 55 inch Panasonic 55ST30 plasma (which by the way will beat the pants off of just about every LED at any price point on the market). Of all the 2011/12 model TVs its in the top 5 best reviewed (only beat by 2 panasonics above it and 1 or 2 samsungs - all were plasmas). Having said that, $1500 for a 42inch is a joke (esp as other have eluded to, all the rumored features so far can be done in the present day $99 aTV box).

Not to come off as too abrasive, but all of you that claim $1500 is a good price on a 42in LCD tv - have you shopped out a flat panel (yes, even GOOD ones) in the last 5 or less years? The top rated 50 inch Samsung and Panasonics go for about $1300 or less.

Note all of this is just rumor at this point - but either apple will have to do something extremely innovative that hasn't been in the rumors yet hardware wise, or they are better off selling the stand alone boxes. The existing aTV in an overpriced LED panel is not going to go over well. Given how smart apple has been in the last decade, i don't see them going down this road.

When you buy a plasma you can get better deals, it is an old technology that suffers from problems. LED and LED/LCD TVs are brighter, consume half the amount of power, do not suffer from burn in, are thinner, and have better picture quality. If the Apple TV is an LED or LED/LCD, then the price is worth it. If it is a plasma, then no it should not be $1500. The top TVs of 2011 were LG and Samsung LED TVs.

 

[rcappo]

It needs to have the ability to record over-the-air programs in HD, and it would be nice if it could grab show like The Daily Show from their website.

I paid $1499 for a 37" LCD TV/monitor that I am using, but that was back in 2004.

 

[jlc1978]

The 27" Apple LCD is NOT a good deal. Please, don't call me Shirley.

I guess Apple's staff picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.

 

[Plecky]

I'm happy with my Samsung PN59D8000 plasma I got for $1,799

42" for $1,499

or

59" for $1,799 + $100 AppleTV

Not much thinking needs to go into that decision. I think this is going to be a huge flop for apple.

Yes, thank you! I own the same TV, bought in a bundle with Blu-Ray player and 4 sets of 3D glasses for $1,899. Of course I could have chosen the 51" model of Samsung's award-winning flagship D8000 Plasma line for $1200-1300 if I didn't want the extra size.

Unfortunately, there are very few of us who appreciate Plasma's... though I'd gladly take the extra screen-estate, typically better blacks/colors, and especially better viewing angles then a potential 42" LED may provide me.

Unless this is a 42" equivalent of Sharp's recent ELITE line technology (doubtful), or OLED (extremely doubtful), I'm with everyone else on buying the $99 aTV and attaching it to a superior display.

Yes, Sony has a beautifully designed high-end line of LED TV's but I wouldn't pay $1499 for a 42" version of it, hence my mention of Sharp's ELITE line. Though I'm still in the camp that until OLED is more widely available, Plasma's the way to go when it comes to flatscreens and performance vs. price-point.

 

[sransari]

Too much...

I would have a really hard time justifying $1500 for this TV...I'm not seeing what the TV has that is more than what the stand-alone appleTV box, plus a cable mirroring an iphone to TV has. It's almost 1000 bux more than the competition:

http://www.amazon.com/LG-42LV4400-4...01GO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328557458&sr=8-1

Am I missing something?

I thikn what apple should do is beef up their current appletv to compete with Tivo. Add cable card access, DVR software (don't even need a hard drive, just record to the same hard drive on the network where your itunes stuff is stored), a blue ray player and amazon instatant, and you've got a winner...charge $400 and no monthly fees and appletv would easily take over the DVR industry. Apple's cornerstone is simplicity and "all-in-one" type devices...a beefed up apple tv will get rid of a seperate blue-ray player, and DVR.

Now, if Apple took it a step further and had ALL these devices in ONE tv...meaning ONE cable for power, and one cable for coax, and you ahd ALL the things mentioned above, I'd love that, and might even be willing to pay 2-3x as much if it merged 4 devices into one (HDTV, appletv, dvr/cablebox, blue ray).

 

[Plecky]

When you buy a plasma you can get better deals, it is an old technology that suffers from problems. LED and LED/LCD TVs are brighter, consume half the amount of power, do not suffer from burn in, are thinner, and have better picture quality. If the Apple TV is an LED or LED/LCD, then the price is worth it. If it is a plasma, then no it should not be $1500. The top TVs of 2011 were LG and Samsung LED TVs.

Source? The only LED TV I saw as Top TV's for Sony's Flagship model and Sharp's ELITE line. The others were Panasonic's VT Plasma and Samsung's D8000 Plasma series.

You are right about them being brighter and consume half the amount of power (or less even!). Also you are correct on thinner, though the picture quality outside of the ELITE and burn-in I would strongly disagree on.

A $1500 ELITE-quality 42" LED TV though would work for me however. But I highly doubt we'd even get something as good as Sony's flagship that uses Gorilla Glass etc.