Competitors Already 'Scrambling' to React to Apple's TV Plans

[alent1234]

An Apple-branded phone will never pull power users away from their Blackberries. And an Apple price will never pull budget consumers away from their feature phones.

iphone is the same price as other phones


what will make an apple TV better than a Vizio or some other brand? i have an ipad 2 as well and don't see the point in buying a Mac anymore since the laptop is off most times.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

This thing won't be called iTV

We have a awful TV Station in the UK already called ITV

Checkout their website itv.com

By the time Apple's lawyers have finished with them they'll be lucky to still have the T and the V. There was a well established Apple doing rather well in the music business since the sixties, but that didn't worry anyone in Cupertino.

 

[ctdonath]

There are no "significant advantages" in the television domain because nobody has them and Apple won't either.

Au contraire. Methinks most viewers are so entrenched in the status quo they can't perceive room for improvement. There is a great deal which could improve the experience, if only some company had the gall to implement such changes.

Pre-iPhone, you'd have said the same thing about tablets: there are no "significant advantages" in the tablet domain because nobody has them and Apple wouldn't have them either - yet here we are today with the industry scrambling to catch up to Apple's new paradigm.

 

[OllyW]

By the time Apple's lawyers have finished with them they'll be lucky to still have the T and the V. Look what happened to the original Apple.

Shame on them. How dare they steal Apple's name for a product that may or may not ever exist, back in 1955.

 

[Themaeds]

Apple already has all the largest major professional sports on the Apple TV except for the NFL. They have baseball, basketball, and hockey. You can already get the NFL on iOS through the NFL Sunday Ticket app so it's just a matter of time for even the NFL. Not sure why you think Apple can't bring sports programming to the end consumer.

One major problem though...most people want to watch their hometown teams and most of the major sports use blackout rules. I cant get Sabres games on the app here because of the deal with MSG. Football is probably the most strict with these. That is going to be a huge obstacle.

 

[designaholic]

They can 'scramble' all they like, but they won't be able to quickly conjure-up the ecosystem Apple has built.

Obviously this is where Apple will look to capitalise, with the huge iTunes content vault + iPhone, and iPad device integration.

 

[soco]

Wow, no flies on you.

No, no lol Just a terribly slow day at work with so many out for Thankgiving travel. Staring at Forum Spy.

Yes, MR reports rumors but this has nothing to to other than a flippant comment Jobs made to his biographer. I've never seen so many weasel words in a front page story.

I don't believe Apple will make a TV unless they can do big content deals. IMO, there is no compelling reason to buy an APple TV unless I can cut the cable cord.

I don't know if I would call it flippant. He was the CEO and head honcho. I know he was nuts too, but still, it's not as if he mentioned it in passing like a fart in the wind. He had a pretty full thought proccess about it.

Agreed that they won't do such a thing without the content deals though. But this has been true since iTunes years ago. They'll get their deals. They always do.

 

[rmwebs]

By the time Apple's lawyers have finished with them they'll be lucky to still have the T and the V. There was a well established Apple doing rather well in the music business since the sixties, but that didn't worry anyone in Cupertino.

Oh for the love of....

It will not be called iTV. Not unless Apple fancy trying to get the second largest, 55 year old TV network in the UK to rebrand.

Not no way, not no how. Its the kind of thing the Government would step in and block anyway. Remember, US law doesn't come into it, its UK law and UK law will favor ITV.

 

[gnasher729]

By the time Apple's lawyers have finished with them they'll be lucky to still have the T and the V. There was a well established Apple doing rather well in the music business since the sixties, but that didn't worry anyone in Cupertino.

If you're talking about Apple Corps (the owner of Apple Records), Apple Inc. _bought_ their trademarks for a nine digit dollar amount.

Au contraire. Methinks most viewers are so entrenched in the status quo they can't perceive room for improvement. There is a great deal which could improve the experience, if only some company had the gall to implement such changes.

The difference to the iPhone situation is that 90% or more of the value of a TV to the customer is in the screen, in the speakers, and in the programs that it shows. And Apple isn't in the business of making TV screens, or speakers, or TV programs. In the phone business, Apple couldn't improve the making of phone calls, but they reduced phone calls to less than 10% of the value of the iPhone to the customer. So 90% of the value of a phone are nowadays in areas where Apple can excel, but only 10% of the value of a TV.

 

[arcite]

Apple developing an entire TV makes little sense to me. TVs are purchases that people expect to last 10+ years. I've had my current TV for 6 years and have no plans to replace it anytime soon. Apple's business plan is for users to upgrade their hardware every 2-4 years. People are not going to do that with a TV.

I think they have the right idea with the current Apple TV 2. A box that uses your TV (any HDMI TV you choose) as a monitor. If they would build that idea out a bit (thinking a few more apps) and maybe some streaming deals and allowing Siri like control via their Remote app, then you have everything that a full Apple TV could do in a little, relatively inexpensive box that can be upgraded every 2 years with out much hesitation from the user.

If Apple did build a TV, it would be gorgeous, nicely integrated into the Apple ecosystem, but it would likely cost upwards of $2000 or more and only come in one or two sizes, which may be a turnoff to the TV buying public.

Why would an Apple TV cost $2000???? One can buy a Sharp Plasma/LCD TV for around $500. An Apple TV would probably start at around $500 and go up from there. Perhaps S. Jobs solved the 'upgrading' problem....

 

[mrklaw]

I'm stumped as to what Apple could do that needs to be a TV set, rather than a box under it.

Even if it gave you a great integrated EPG, you could do that with a box - just have your TV permanently set to the 'appleTV' input when you switch it on, and use the apple remote.

Actually building TV sets is a really risky venture if they do it, as people will be already invested in TVs and not looking to upgrade for a few years. Its not quite as active as phones where people update every year or two.

Unless they do a two-tier approach, offering the full TV and then a separate box for those not ready to upgrade yet?

 

[designaholic]

Oh for the love of....

It will not be called iTV. Not unless Apple fancy trying to get the second largest, 55 year old TV network in the UK to rebrand.

Not no way, not no how. Its the kind of thing the Government would step in and block anyway. Remember, US law doesn't come into it, its UK law and UK law will favor ITV.

Yep, this is precisely why Apple TV is not called iTV.

 

[diamond.g]

Apple already has all the largest major professional sports on the Apple TV except for the NFL. They have baseball, basketball, and hockey. You can already get the NFL on iOS through the NFL Sunday Ticket app so it's just a matter of time for even the NFL. Not sure why you think Apple can't bring sports programming to the end consumer.

Is there a subscription price related to the AppleTV offerings? What is the major difference between watching a basball game on an AppleTV versus watching it on one's cable box?

I ask because not only do I not watch sports, but I don't have an AppleTV 2.

 

[soco]

Why would an Apple TV cost $2000???? One can buy a Sharp Plasma/LCD TV for around $500. An Apple TV would probably start at around $500 and go up from there. Perhaps S. Jobs solved the 'upgrading' problem....

That doesn't make any sense. Just because a crap TV from Sharp starts at $500 doesn't mean a theoretically fantastic TV from Apple should.

If this were to be the case, what would happen to the price point of the iPad? Start at $35? Be reasonable.

 

[tosehee]

Sharp?

This must be the first failure from Apple...

 

[mrklaw]

They can 'scramble' all they like, but they won't be able to quickly conjure-up the ecosystem Apple has built.

Obviously this is where Apple will look to capitalise, with the huge iTunes content vault + iPhone, and iPad device integration.

how many people listen to music through their TV? Won't most apple-invested users have speaker docks etc for that?

and if you mean TV/movies, they have very little coverage outside of a few markets.

 

[soco]

I'm stumped as to what Apple could do that needs to be a TV set, rather than a box under it.

Even if it gave you a great integrated EPG, you could do that with a box - just have your TV permanently set to the 'appleTV' input when you switch it on, and use the apple remote.

Actually building TV sets is a really risky venture if they do it, as people will be already invested in TVs and not looking to upgrade for a few years. Its not quite as active as phones where people update every year or two.

Unless they do a two-tier approach, offering the full TV and then a separate box for those not ready to upgrade yet?

Don't forget that years ago, people only upgraded their phones every few years as well. Apple changed that.

 

[rdowns]

Agreed that they won't do such a thing without the content deals though. But this has been true since iTunes years ago. They'll get their deals. They always do.

Not so sure this time. Let's not forget that cable companies control most of the Internet pipes into homes. If Apple were somehow able to convince networks to bypass cable operators, you'll see your monthly Internet fees skyrocket not to mention caps on bandwidth.

 

[futbalguy]

I think there are way too many people that are overstating the importance of a TV's picture quality to most consumers. Most consumers cant tell the difference and they dont do research. An Apple TV just needs to be a competitive 1080p TV with an awesome interface. I paid for a nice TV 5 years ago, I dont watch much TV these days but when I do I never know how to find a TV show I want to watch. I dont have the channels memorized and there are way too many and they are spread out in no rational order. And the Comcast tv show quide is just terrible. There are only 4 shows shown at a time and you cant figure out whats going on. I would LOVE to tell my TV to turn to ESPN or to play back a show I want to watch or had recorded. The remote control interface currently used is beyond worthless. Anyone saying its easy is just a technophile or has spent a long time figuring it out. If Apple makes a TV that is easy to control it will change the industry.

 

[Žalgiris]

Apple changed that.

As far as i know you still can choose to keep your older phone and not to upgrade. Whatever Apple makes people still make that choice to upgrade, the fact that milions run to upgrade only because of the cool factor when in fact their "old" phone is still good for at least few more years is whole other problem.

I think same works for anything. TV is not an exception. Apple TV or not there are people upgrading their TVs every year. Of course if Apple makes one there will be way more people upgrading every year.

----------

Not so sure this time. Let's not forget that cable companies control most of the Internet pipes into homes.

US that is.

 

[MovieCutter]

Apart from all the phones in the years before the iPhone that had large touchscreens and smartphone interfaces. How soon people's memories fail. Apple may have improved the looks and interfaces, but these other devices like the SE P800 (2002), etc, were there before.

Also a lot of the modern TVs have a lot of internet functionality already. Siri is the real golden technology that Apple can use to kill the remote.

Oh yeah, and those had such a huge impact on the market and worked SO well...I HAD the P800, it was slow as slugs and the interface left a LOT to be desired. Not to mention it was not a phone for the masses. I had Treos, Blackberrys, etc. I wanted to throw all of them out my window onto the concrete far below...

And my Samsung TV has plenty of internet functionality, but the interface sucks. It's slow, VERY inefficient, and not nearly what I could imagine an Apple set being. It's only saving grace is that I installed Plex onto it to stream everything from my 12TB Mac Mini server.

 

[charlituna]

The idea of an "apple tax" is quickly becoming a myth.

The Apple Tax has always been something of a myth. Based on folks that don't understand everything that money is supporting. They don't get that $99 a year doesn't cover the salary for the trainers, etc much less the sales staff.

As for this rumor, I'm going to be ROTFLMFAO when next holiday rolls around and there's still no 'real tv' but rather just yet another souped up little black box with a few more content deals like the whole NHL and MLB stuff (plus more stuff released on the iTunes stores hopefully with at least a price drop if not a quality bump). Because Steve told Walter that he cracked the interface NOT an actual TV. And that interface could be inside that little black box, or about to be.

 

[soco]

Not so sure this time. Let's not forget that cable companies control most of the Internet pipes into homes. If Apple were somehow able to convince networks to bypass cable operators, you'll see your monthly Internet fees skyrocket not to mention caps on bandwidth.

True, but maybe that'll be the new way of things. Cut out cable as a means of consuming media and just bring everything into the home over the internet. I don't know about skyrocket, but obviously the prices would rise to equal what cable and internet combined to add to.

Point is, if it works, and it's easier, I'll pay.

As far as i know you still can choose to keep your older phone and not to upgrade. Whatever Apple makes people still make that choice to upgrade, the fact that milions run to upgrade only because of the cool factor when in fact their "old" phone is still good for at least few more years is whole other problem.

I think same works for anything. TV is not an exception. Apple TV or not there are people upgrading their TVs every year. Of course if Apple makes one there will be way more people upgrading every year.

No offense intended, but you sound delusional. My entire point was that Apple brought about a change in the collective mindset about cellular phones in that we do make that choice, whereas before, we generally didn't. If you think you can consume the media you'll surely want to consume in 2015, ~3 years from now on an iPhone 4S, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[KnightWRX]

Don't forget that years ago, people only upgraded their phones every few years as well. Apple changed that.

Changed what ? People still mostly upgrade based on their contract durations. And a phone is 100-200$ subsidized, it's not a 1200$ TV set.

 

[Neodym]

I would not mind if Apple would take care of the "TV devices" market in whichever way. Recently i was looking to get a simple set top box for Sat TV and it was a real PITA! Intransparent market situation, release cycles often below 6 months (which often means no more support once the successor is out) and usability often beyond what could be considered funny at least (not to mention build quality, design and - probably - longevity).

Reminds me strongly of the situation in the cellphone market prior to the iPhone.

It's true that a TV set is not being replaced as fast as consumer gadgets like cellphones, mp3 players or "home" computers - YET! Product cycles have massively decreased in other markets - why shouldn't that apply to the TV segment in the future as well?

Apple already sells 27" screens (which was one hell of a TV back in the 80's and even 90's) on their iMacs and those actually do get replaced every 2-3 years, with the old model being sold to finance the new gen (or handed down inside the family).

I could imagine Apple making a TV more of a commodity than the long-term investment it currently is.

Admitted - handling a 47-60" screen is a little different to an already huge 27" iMac, so it would be harder to sell 2nd hand.

However, maybe Apple changes its policies and re-discovers modularity:

For example an Apple TV set could consist of a basic "monitor" part that stays installed in your flat long-term and a replaceable "intelligence" part that can be replaced every two years or so. Think of e.g. an iPad that can be plugged into an Apple ExpansionPort-ish connector inside the device, holding all the intelligence. There even has been a patent from Apple describing something similar, where people assumed it would have been for an iMac.

Maybe it's actually intended for exactly such a new device class...?!