Exclusive: Apple Plasma Displays to Rock MWSF (PowerPage.org)

[nhkader]

Whatever, I have no misinformation, you just can't read straight. Plasma's don't have 60,000 hour half lives, just life. Their half-live is a bit sooner than that, and once their dead, they're dead. I'm hoping you know the difference since it's your work field. And its only been the rather new plasmas that have gotten better life to them, but I'd still never buy one because they won't last in the market, and though you may work on them its harder to find repair shops for them. And yes like I said between a new LCD and new Plasma the plasma tv will look better, but that changes down the road. And yes buy tools at sears, and tvs when they're on sale. Just to note I haven't worked for sears for a while. I moved up from that.

angelwatt must be the biggest fool I have come across in a long time. For the record I have a 3 year old Plasma 50in (Panasonic) and a newer 32in LCD (Sony) and I can tell you that the plasma is easily the better device for me. As for burn-in and longevity, give me a break. My kid watches Cartoon network and some other programs and buy now the plasma should have the logo etched into the screen, but nothing shows. Also both the technologies will be out of date well before we have mega hi-def TV/movies. Why on earth can people not just realise and accept that you cannot buy electronics to last 20 years. I know there are TVs out there that are 20 years old, but people who watch those TVs aren't the ones on these types of tech forums i.e. those looking for the latest technology.

 

[50548]

Is it just me or anyone else here thinks that, if this rumor is real, it will have a minor impact in sales and earnings for Apple?

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys, few people have 3000 dollars to spare on a plasma/lcd screen...perhaps in the near future yes, not now...especially in places where Apple products are imported and suffer heavier taxation...don't you agree?

 

[Cinch]

NYTIMES article

Is it just me or anyone else here thinks that, if this rumor is real, it will have a minor impact in sales and earnings for Apple?

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys, few people have 3000 dollars to spare on a plasma/lcd screen...perhaps in the near future yes, not now...especially in places where Apple products are imported and suffer heavier taxation...don't you agree?

The nytimes.com has an article today in the Technology section that I think we all have been thinking about http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/technology/07video.html

TV with 100,00 channels is alright with me. I'll buy a HI-Def TV to watch low quality home made porn

Just kidden, or maybe not

Cinch

 

[Goldfinger]

Is it just me or anyone else here thinks that, if this rumor is real, it will have a minor impact in sales and earnings for Apple?

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys, few people have 3000 dollars to spare on a plasma/lcd screen...perhaps in the near future yes, not now...especially in places where Apple products are imported and suffer heavier taxation...don't you agree?

Asbolutely agree. And add to that that mainstream HDTV content in Europe will be something for 2009-2010.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Is it just me or anyone else here thinks that, if this rumor is real, it will have a minor impact in sales and earnings for Apple?

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys, few people have 3000 dollars to spare on a plasma/lcd screen...perhaps in the near future yes, not now...especially in places where Apple products are imported and suffer heavier taxation...don't you agree?

Ummmm, actually I think it's you Swiss mama boys that are going to be foxtrotting and bunny-hopping over to the Apple store to buy these with mummy's Euro Card.

 

[toro]

Plasma, not Plasma -- whatever. What would apple do? The ipod was not a player but a content magnet, Integration. It makes sense; no cables (physical or not) no xtra box no nothing but plug and buy. It makes sense.

 

[texasmafia]

Is it just me or anyone else here thinks that, if this rumor is real, it will have a minor impact in sales and earnings for Apple?

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys, few people have 3000 dollars to spare on a plasma/lcd screen...perhaps in the near future yes, not now...especially in places where Apple products are imported and suffer heavier taxation...don't you agree?

I don't agree. I guess some people are missing out on what is happening in America when it comes to consumer electronics. Things are moving fast. VERY FAST! What is new today is old in 6 months. A year ago you would have struggled to find a place to legally download network TV shows but now we have all the big boys trying to fight over distribution rights. Right now, this very second, it might not look like there is a huge market for a $2,500 TV. But think about when it becomes much more than just a TV. It becomes the center of a persons home life, their true digital media center, the holy grail of consumer electronics, people will be willing to pay the price. 9 years ago my family bought a computer that wasn't even near the best on the market and it was $2500. Now days places are practically giving away desktops. Things change and if Apple jumps on this revolution first they can ride the wave while everyone else is drowning!

 

[macidiot]

Apple is already is a ridiculously overpriced stock. Honestly, do you think Apple is worth more than Sony? Sony has movie studios, recording companies, TVs, stereos, video games ... and consumer products and computers. Yet the market value of Apple is $20 billion higher than Sony. It's absurd -- Apple will NEVER be as big or valuable as Sony.

And what happens to Apple stock if Steve Jobs one day decides to become CEO of Disney and waves goodbye (again)?

But don't take my word for it: http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=120123&format=&page=1

Yes. Apple is worth more than Sony.

The difference is Apple is making money while Sony is barely profitable. Oh, and Apple is growing, Sony isn't. The movie industry is stagnant/declining. The music industry is stagnant/declining. Its ce division is getting its ass kicked by Apple, Samsung, and a bunch of Chinese companies.

Your confusing having a strong brand with having a strong company. Btw, Apple has a pretty strong brand too. And your confusing sales volume with profit. Actually, your confusing a lot of things, because your really way off base.

So, yes, Apple is worth more than Sony. And is currently a bigger company than Sony.

I would hardly call the stock ridiculously overpriced. Pricey, yes. But ridiculously so? No. If Apple executes well(as in the Intel macs are hits and Apple gets some marketshare), this stock will be over 100 in 12 months. If not, it will be at 85-90 just from iPod growth.

btw, GM is only worth about 12 billion in market cap now. And I think that is too much. Using your reasoning, that would be absurd, since GM has more employees and does more business, bigger brands, more everything, really, than Apple. Except that GM isn't actually making any money. And has about 360 billion in debt.

 

[Moonlight]

I mean, apart from some U.S. mama's boys,

Hmmmm, that statement is wrong on many levels. If you can't contribute to the discussion positively, why do it at all??

 

[angelwatt]

angelwatt must be the biggest fool I have come across in a long time. For the record I have a 3 year old Plasma 50in (Panasonic) and a newer 32in LCD (Sony) and I can tell you that the plasma is easily the better device for me. As for burn-in and longevity, give me a break. My kid watches Cartoon network and some other programs and buy now the plasma should have the logo etched into the screen, but nothing shows. Also both the technologies will be out of date well before we have mega hi-def TV/movies. Why on earth can people not just realise and accept that you cannot buy electronics to last 20 years. I know there are TVs out there that are 20 years old, but people who watch those TVs aren't the ones on these types of tech forums i.e. those looking for the latest technology.

when exactly do i ever mention burn in? i agree plasma doesn't get burn in and haven't said otherwise. and 3 years isn't long enough to see differences between the technologies. try reading other people's post before commenting on them.

 

[50548]

Ummmm, actually I think it's you Swiss mama boys that are going to be foxtrotting and bunny-hopping over to the Apple store to buy these with mummy's Euro Card.

Well, I wish I could be into some private banking now, hehe...am just a poor student in Switzerland (although I must admit the iMac G5 I bought here had a pretty good price)...

But I agree, there are many Mama's boys around as well, especially in Geneva surroundings...

 

[50548]

Hmmmm, that statement is wrong on many levels. If you can't contribute to the discussion positively, why do it at all??

Relax, it's a figure of speech, man, figure of speech...but you can't disagree it's easier for U.S. Mama's boys to have Apple plasma screens...after all it's the company's homeland...you're gonna see a lot of 'em in O.C.'s new episodes, trust me...

My contribution is in the question already posted...read it again and gimme your opinion, please. I just think a display/PVR for 3000 grand is not gonna attract many normal people around the world...not as an iPod or a full-blown laptop...as for me, it's gonna be way beyond my shopping needs, unless it's a great new integrated Mac with PVR features...

 

[ncbill]

People are happy to pay $1700 for a 20" iMac.

When in online forums someone asks "17 or 20 inch iMac?" the response is ALWAYS "get the 20 inch"

Based on that, I don't see people balking at spending $2600 for a 42" iMac with more media center features.

Even if you need to replace the computer part in 3 years.

>I just think a display/PVR for 3000 grand is not gonna attract many normal people

 

[technocoy]

ever read the tipping point?

go read that book and you will more understand apples current marketing.

Also,

Everyone who doubts this should go back to all the posts when apple was going to introduce a music player....

why would they do that? there are already MP3 players on the market, and i'm not going to pay 400-500 dollars for an MP3 player. This idea will flop.

fast forward several years.

hello.

home theater is exactly like the music market.... people are sick of clutter and sick of components and end all be all products that don't add up and become a hassle to operate.

if apple announces a system that can reside in one box (minus your amplifier) or even in multiple that works so seamless.... they will own a market that several other companies have been in for decades...


i buy an iHome plug it in in my livingroom... it connects with my iPod and wirelessly to my computer while also having it's own storage. then i take the lcd remote that comes with it and it runs everything else in my house as well...

then i buy my three sets of apple wi-fi speakers and plug one in in my bedrooom, one in my gym, and one on my patio. whereever i go in my house, no clutter. i take the lcd remote and when i enter the bedroom it senses those speakers and pipes everything into my bedroom displaying all the relevant info on the remote. same for every other room in the house.

it's an awesome thing that apple could do. not to say there won't be kinks at first, but hey, they learn like anyone else.

i for one hope it's true. BUT i do think it need component output along with the hdmi.... too many televisions still don't have this standard.

 

[MarcelV]

Plasma, not Plasma -- whatever. What would apple do? The ipod was not a player but a content magnet, Integration. It makes sense; no cables (physical or not) no xtra box no nothing but plug and buy. It makes sense.

That would be indeed perfect, but will not be realistic for now. No extra box, unless Apple is going to provide IPTV, there will be a box needed. Unfortunate most people still uses 'regular' tv, whether this is Cable, Dish or Directv, it doesn't matter. a box will be needed.

 

[texasmafia]

go read that book and you will more understand apples current marketing.

Also,

Everyone who doubts this should go back to all the posts when apple was going to introduce a music player....

why would they do that? there are already MP3 players on the market, and i'm not going to pay 400-500 dollars for an MP3 player. This idea will flop.

fast forward several years.

hello.

home theater is exactly like the music market.... people are sick of clutter and sick of components and end all be all products that don't add up and become a hassle to operate.

if apple announces a system that can reside in one box (minus your amplifier) or even in multiple that works so seamless.... they will own a market that several other companies have been in for decades...

I'm right with you! I think Apple will come out with something huge like this because if they wanna stay at the front of the pack when it comes to digital media they MUST do this NOW! If they wait even a year to come out with a real media center they will be out of the game.

 

[jholzner]

O'Grady is a tool....he has yet to be right on any of his predictions for as far back as I can remember.

That's true but according to some others on this thread he basically pulled this info from an appleinsider poster and claimed it as his own. Who really knows but at least it's a new rumor and not the same intel in ibook stuff we've been reading about for weeks now.

 

[toro]

That would be indeed perfect, but will not be realistic for now. No extra box, unless Apple is going to provide IPTV, there will be a box needed. Unfortunate most people still uses 'regular' tv, whether this is Cable, Dish or Directv, it doesn't matter. a box will be needed.

You want your box? then plug it. You want radio on the Ipod?, buy the gadget and plug it -- the core concept remains; clean at both ends, the hardware and the content service. Apple will only deliver the hardware when the content is ready, and if that is not now it will be soon.

 

[DeepDish]

Rolo, how does Google fit into this?

Rolo,

How does Google and the Google Box fit into this?

How close is Cringley to understand any of this?

How does that one rumor about apple having video content streamed but not stored on the computer fit into this?

Thank you Rolo for getting me excited about this year's MacWorld. Up to now I was not that interested. Another slide show of itunes sales, yawn.

 

[chicagdan]

Yeah, Apple is profitable, but it's trading at 60 TIMES it's PROJECTED earnings. If you think that's a good return on investment, than you really are the macidiot.

 

[windowuser82]

lol@this rumor

No way in blue hell Apple would let a product like that (they wouldn't create it anyway) go for less than 5 grand.

What I could see happening (always a bit of truth in ALL fiction) is possibly a 23" iMac.

Apple has royally ****ed themselves with the Mini and iMac because, really, there's no where they can go with that particular design. Mini's can get no smaller and iMacs can get no thinner. Either make them larger in an "innovative" way ie the 23" iMac or totally head in another direction as with the iMac g4 - g5

Plasma displays have no real "life" outside of guys like myself and we wouldn't make a b-line for Apple to purchase one.

 

[Dr.W]

I believe it!

I think apple will introduce the 42 and 50 inch TV! The platform exists already!Apple has earlier used the same platform as HP for the 23 inch Cinema Display. If you look at HP’s homepage you will find that they have just the models ready (http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2006/ces/entertainment.html). The HP PL5060N 50-inch High Definition Plasma Television and HP PL4260N 42-inch High Definition Plasma Television would fit this rumor perfect. An Apple look and you have it!

 

[Porchland]

btw, GM is only worth about 12 billion in market cap now. And I think that is too much. Using your reasoning, that would be absurd, since GM has more employees and does more business, bigger brands, more everything, really, than Apple. Except that GM isn't actually making any money. And has about 360 billion in debt.

I think a lot of people would be surprised at the relative value of companies based on market cap. Here's a few:

Microsoft $286B
Google $138B
Time Warner $83B
Viacom $66B
Apple $64B
Comcast $60B
Disney $48B
Vivendi Universal (NBC) $38B
Adobe $19B
Tivo $444M

It makes you wonder why one of the cable or media companies hasn't picked up Tivo just for its technology.

Apple's lack of a major acquisition during its amazing stock run-up of the last few years and the increasing importance of content and distribution to Apple makes me wonder why it hasn't made a deal for an entertainment company, a carrier or both.

Paramount is going to get Dreamworks for about $1B.

 

[EricNau]

...
It makes you wonder why one of the cable or media companies hasn't picked up Tivo just for its technology.
...

Comcast may be interested...

TiVo and cable television giant Comcast reached a nonexclusive distribution deal in March 2005 easing some investor concerns over TiVo's future. The companies announced that they would make TiVo's service available over Comcast's cable network, with the first co-developed products available by the end of 2006, using the TiVo brand.

 

[TaKashMoney]

Well, while I have no real opinion as to whether this is a plausible rumor or not. If its true then I will not buy it and will be sorely disappointed/ jaded with envy. I sure would pay 500 dollars for the technology minus the giant display though. An Apple TiVo would hit the sweet spot on my poor college funds...