algiris
macrumors 6502a
Maybe i'm blind, but Apple sells more stuff to the rest of the world than US.
----------
Nice try. Can't blame for trying though.
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.
Competitors Already 'Scrambling' to React to Apple's TV Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe i'm blind, but Apple sells more stuff to the rest of the world than US.
----------
Nice try. Can't blame for trying though.
Let's see. Apple had very little experience in making:
Personal computers
Keyboards
B&W monitors
Laser Printers
Color Monitors
Hard Drives
Laptop computers
Retail Stores
Walkmans (iPods)
Phones (iPhones)
Tablets (iPads)
etc., etc., etc.
spatlese44
macrumors 6502
Cable Card? How about no HDMI cable? And no RF connection? And certainly no component or composite video!
Just a power cord and an optical audio output.
OK, maybe an ethernet port, but really could you just do wireless? With a boxed in box like that, they would have total control. Just brainstorming here, but with something so closed, wouldn't they be in a better position to bargin with the studios and networks? No chance of stealing content; just a pure, hermetically sealed revenue stream.
This should be interesting. If the rumors are real - and for certain Apple has been developing protos for years, so it could be - and the planned release is "summer-ish", then we'll probably get the announcement by February.
I know what I'd do - high quality panel, embedded AppleTV (beefed up to "PS4" GPU specs), iOS (w/App Store) and Siri - but that's feeling a little obvious, maybe they have a truly mind blowing trick up their sleeves.
And no "maybe" about the ethernet port - I want a wired network connection.
There is zero question about it - Apple is more than capable enough of doing this "right" and making a crap load of money in the process.
I know what I'd do - high quality panel, embedded AppleTV (beefed up to "PS4" GPU specs), iOS (w/App Store) and Siri - but that's feeling a little obvious, maybe they have a truly mind blowing trick up their sleeves.
And no "maybe" about the ethernet port - I want a wired network connection.
There is zero question about it - Apple is more than capable enough of doing this "right" and making a crap load of money in the process.
I love my internet capable Vizio! HULU, Netflix, Facebook, all that kinda stuff built in. The only thing that made my Vizio better? Plugging in an AppleTV! I would gladly pay say and additional $200 for a better built TV that looks better AND has the AppleTV interface PLUS whatever new tricks they have up their sleeve. Sony and Vizio interfaces for Netflix and stuff are nice, but I just don't understand why the hell they're so kludgy. Don't they cache thumbnails? They're just so crappy by comparison. And why the eight zillion buttons on the Vizio remote? A bigger apple remote with number pad would be ideal.
MacNewsFix
macrumors 6502a
+1
However, you forgot one: most popular cameras on Flickr or, if you prefer, top four most popular cameraphones on Flickr.
Attachments
supremedesigner
macrumors 65816
Competitors hadn't done nothing for years and years till the last minute when they found out that Steve Jobs finally cracked it then they started to freak out ... they're FREAKING STATUS QUO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I had to guess, I kind of expect a Siri enabled tv WITH some kind of gesture control as well (2013 launch). As far as the idea that people only upgrade tvs every 6 years or on won't change apple's strategy as I'm willing to bet the TV will only be a means for them to sell you TV show packages via iTunes (the real money maker). Jobs sounded like he wanted to bury the cable operators and if apple can strike content deals directly with the networks (better than what they have now, i.e. live tv and sports or something) he might actually do it.
BornAgainMac
macrumors 604
Just having the fear of Apple entering the market should get innovation back into the TV again. Good job Apple, without you tech would flatline.
Neodym
macrumors 68030
Depends! If you compare market-to-market, then yes (well - maybe, actually, as one would have to assume that Southern America is negligible compared to Northern America in that statistic).
However if you consider the fraction of "Americas" compared to the total revenue, it's only a mere 34,1%. Or in other words: Apple makes nearly 2/3 of its revenue outside of its (american) "home" market...!
gugy
macrumors 601
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)
Well if Apple makes a TV set it better be amazing because I am not replacing anytime soon my 60 inch plasma from Pioneer. I am sure many people out there is in the same boat.
There are amazing sets out there in terms of picture quality. So people will not jump into Apple just because some cool features. They need to revolutionize the TV experience to really draw people into this. I wonder if all the TV talk is really aimed at AppleTV box instead of a TV set.
Well if Apple makes a TV set it better be amazing because I am not replacing anytime soon my 60 inch plasma from Pioneer. I am sure many people out there is in the same boat.
There are amazing sets out there in terms of picture quality. So people will not jump into Apple just because some cool features. They need to revolutionize the TV experience to really draw people into this. I wonder if all the TV talk is really aimed at AppleTV box instead of a TV set.
I don't see many mentioning a camera. Wouldn't they put a cheap little iChat/FaceTime/Skype camera in there? Seems like a no brainer I've yet to see in a TV. iOS apps would be nice, but would be relegated to the ones that don't need touch. I also think that it still has to have a tuner, so the big obvious thing would be a built in TiVo type device that uploads to the cloud. TiVo your shows, watch em anywhere. Or have them streamed right to your devices a la sling box. So many things they could do to make a cool TV.
Neodym
macrumors 68030
I think it sucks that Apple's plans to revolutionize the tv have been leaked. I would have enjoyed seeing the industry caught entirely off guard by Apple's paradigm-shifting yet again. Now we'll have a bunch of wanna be's rushing to the market so that they can preemptively capture market share with their speculative products and half-way solutions, leaving a muddled and confusing "smart TV" market (or whatever the market segment will be called).
Steve Jobs totally could have trolled in his biography. In those last two pages written by him he could have said something about lucky charm bracelets and a couple months later Google would have made one that could do searches or something.
That isn't even a close comparison. Do Blackberry users base their purchase on the audio quality? Do budget users pay $1500 for a phone?
Television is a completely different purchasing experience. It's not discounted by providers when you buy one and isn't purchased by people who emphasize the quality of the medium.
To support the HT users an Apple television would need a large amazing screen, with multiple inputs and video technologies. Something which Apple has never demonstrated in supporting in the past. Remote control? Irrelevant to HT users. They have their own and it works just the way they like it, just like my Pronto 9400 does.
Budget users don't care about picture quality over price and there is no way to subsidize a television to enter that market.
So you are left with the middle ground emphasizing style over function. I can see Apple making ground there but unless they offer amazing display technology (no edge-lit LED crap) or sub-$500 price points the other markets will be unaffected.
People I know still use CRT even though HDTV has been on the air for well over a decade. Technology isn't driving their purchase mentality.
bruinsrme
macrumors 604
Agree.
Every single set I have researched has some rather significant shortfalls. The shortfalls vary manufacturer to manufacturer.
They are pumping of new models so quickly it seems like they hope and pray the damn things work at all.
On thing apple may have going for them is, their loyal fan base doesn't seem to care paying for last years technology with a couple of exclusive gimmicks built in at a significant premium. It's been a successful approach.
From an Apple view they have to succeed in their own country and that means dealing with one of the worst television technology landscapes in the world.
Digital television sucks in the US. It has no freedom and has no support as it does in other countries, but the fact the US is the home market means any product released has to play nice here regardless of how well it would work elsewhere.
Apple makes hardly anything from iTunes. They make money from hardware, hardware, hardware. They have been forced to make good software and provide content to accomplish their ecosystem, but what they know, is how to make money from hardware. And recent growth since the iPhone is from their realization that "wow, we can grow exponentially if we quit isolating windows users." But, it still fits a little better into the mac ecosystem and the trickle down effect has increased awareness of OSX products as well. It's been a perfect storm for them. The AppleTV will have a similar effect, even if it's not initially their best seller. Integration with your laptop and iPad/phone will be stellar. Satellite boxes often have caller ID info. What if the AppleTV also gave you a notification center like your phone? Or if it gave you the option to initiate a FaceTime chat with your caller. But all this stuff in software will allow them to sell a pretty standard piece of TV hardware for a premium price. The current AppleTV box is so cheap they can't make any money off it. It's just a playground. They already learned nobody wants to pay $300 for a box. So the margins have to be in more expensive TV hardware.
The shortfalls even occur within specific product lines of single brands too, as the Samsung "panel lottery" has shown.
I would love an Apple television that fulfills all the criteria to make it a winner but the fact is time and again they have shown they won't do that. Which is why I don't use Apple monitors now. I have more than one device I would like to plug into them and Apple doesn't want to support users like me.
What you are claiming is debatable. I have both LCD and Plasma. While it's true that generally the colors are much richer (and the contrast much better on my Plasma) LCD with LED back-lighting really make the color balance much more equal.
I bought a Plasma 1st because I heard rumors about blurring on LCD screen when there is a lot of motion on the screen (I watch a lot of NASCAR and Football). This has never been a problem for me.
When watching my Plasma on a bright day, I absolutely have to close the curtains to get a nice pic on the screen, something unnecessary on the LCD. Finally, my Plasma is a boat anchor compared to my LCD.
While the superiority of Plasma over LCD was true 4 or 5 years ago, LCD has caught up and to make a blanket statement (as you did) that "Plasmas are better than LCDs" is simply not true and makes you sound uninformed.
Oh, one more thing...
Apple's TV definitely needs an update to allow it to do more and yes, Steve Jobs HAD mentioned some vague plans for TVs in the future. However, I do not believe this is something even close to physical yet and secondly, it will not be called iTV. As previously mentioned by someone recently in this post, the UK already has a TV channel called iTV that would come down hard on Apple if they tried to take it. And Apple cannot say they were the first to use that name.
Apple's TV definitely needs an update to allow it to do more and yes, Steve Jobs HAD mentioned some vague plans for TVs in the future. However, I do not believe this is something even close to physical yet and secondly, it will not be called iTV. As previously mentioned by someone recently in this post, the UK already has a TV channel called iTV that would come down hard on Apple if they tried to take it. And Apple cannot say they were the first to use that name.
Hey Thanks for the info. Please tell us all how little Apple makes on iTunes!! Since you stated this as a fact, I'm sure you have hard numbers to back it up.
MacAddict1978
macrumors 68000
You need to research about panels. Maybe you aren't aware, but most of the set makers formed a consortium and have joint ventures to manufacture panels together. Three competing brands can all be using the same display branded as their own. This is one of the things that helped brings costs of flat panel tv's down so quickly. These same makers also might have a premium line that uses more proprietary displays, but it's the $500 sets that are flying off the shelves, not the $1200 ones.
The panel isn't always the issue. 3 companies can use the same display and have very different picture quality. What's behind the panel and under the hood count for a lot!
Sony & Samsung have been in a venture together, however, they are terminating that soon. HTC purchased all their displays from the venture. Sony is losing money on their TV business and somehow things going at it alone will change this. Sony currently makes more money from their venture with Samsung selling displays to competitors than they make on their own TV sets. Go figure. Sony is an epic fail.
LG & Phillips did the same, but Phillips left and the company runs independant of LG and sells to lots of people. Hitatchi sold the tech to them.
I can't remember the third, which involves Sharp.
Doubtful. The cable card didn't die because device makers didn't support it, it died because cable companies didn't support it. Cable operators don't want you using equipment they don't make money off of. They did the bare minimum to comply with federal standards, which make for an awful user experience. Anyone who tried a cable card ditched it quite fast. The concept and idea were great.... the end results were awful. Unless the government would put heat on operators to improve compatibility, never going to happen.
Especially not in an Apple device with the user experience is the biggest selling feature.
Take note of 1 thing you said: videophiles. You are the minority consumer, and represent such a small sliver of sales. You're the customer base that is making companies bleed money because there are so few of you, and development of a high end tv is expensive, and the sales don't break even in the end on those lines. This is why Sony is dying in the TV market, because they pushed high end sets for so long. (And I don't think they even competed well at all. Who still sees Sony as a premium brand?)
90% of people go to a store, want a good price, good picture, and a 42"-"52" display. That's it.
YOu can find a 42" tv from a brand name company in various models for $499, $799, $1299, even over $2k. Most people are buying the $499 model, or maybe spending an extra hundren on something similar. They're not foolish for this either.
Until the human eye magically evolves, the things that draw the videophile crowd aren't worth it to most people. Heck, I have debates all the time with people who claim their TV is so great because it's got X specs. To which I always say, "yes, but your eyes can't see them. The human eye can't see that depth and detail. You paid a lot more for something you can't ever see! Bravo!"
The things you said a TV needs to have, most already do. It's the end of the world when your TV doesn't stream Pandora, I know. Or your neighbor has Hulu+ and you only have Netflix. The terror! These aren't the things the make or break a persons buying decision. The TV market isn't broken or hurting... it's that most people have upgraded and where people would maybe buy a smaller set for the bedroom, they're going for an iPad or something instead.
I find it interesting that it's just assumed Siri would be in the TV, when in the end, Siri in a TV wouldn't be very practical at all. How many people have their set 2 feet in front of them where voice commands would work? No one I know. You could put a mic on the remote, but that's kind of....eh.
I can see Siri being in an Apple set, it makes sense, but I don't think Siri would be the game changer. I don't think other companies do either or there wouldn't be such a fuss over what is it that Apple came up with to change the game?
Apple has patented some interesting Xbox Kinnect like things in the past few years... and they're a very gesture oriented company in their interface development. I'm going to bet on a mix of a simplified Apple TV like interface, with Siri support, and motions sensors. (You are the remote!)
It's not even accessing the TV that's a pain. It's once you turn the thing on, getting through all the menus, content, etc. To be really compelling, really fresh, it would almost need to marry Apple TV with a Tivo like feature, Apple's echo system, and your existing cable into one harmonious easy to use way with the cloud baked in.
We can all sit here and ponder what could be in it... but we all could set our expectations so high we're horribly disappointed.
I remember someone who once said something similar about music and mp3 players - ME! Boy was I wrong.......
😉