Foxconn Likely to Win Contract for Building Apple Television Set

[acozilla]

The music industry and the tv/movie industries aren't in comparable shapes. A simple growth chart would tell you that. Thats why this nut is harder to crack than the music one was.

It's the same thing. Digital content is digital content. Weather it be music (hits your ears) or video (hits your eyes). The only difference is pricing. Distribution and organization will be the exact same. It's just packaged differently.

My point is the content providers are used to the old ways to distribute content. The internet has changed that. Those dumbasses don't realize that and wont sit down and figure out a way to do it right. Apple does this, which explains their consistent success.

 

[chirpie]

That is not an improvement. Not unless the unit can scan your room like in The Incredibles and align its speakers and timing to actually give you proper surround sound from one location. I think we're a few years away from that.

And you just can't cheat physics when it comes to sound. There's a reason you often get tubby mid bass and cut off highs from the "bass module" & satellite set ups: To move air (make waves) you need surface area (and in some cases, at least a tweeter of some kind for pete's sake). And all the proprietary market speak will never change that.

 

[rmwebs]

Apple has been said to have developed "new technology" for delivering video content to televisions, and had previously been rumored to be expressing interest in shaking up television with "best of television" subscription packages through iTunes.

So in a nutshell, its an AppleTV slapped on the back of a standard TV. Essentially an on-board ARM based computer....exactly what every manufacturer is doing. I know of several TV sets that can be bought with Netflix and/or Lovefilm as well as iPlayer, ITV Player and allow streaming.

Since AppleTV doesn't allow UPNP or streaming from any non-iTunes device (I.E a network drive) its still going to be just as useless as the current gen AppleTV.

There's very little that needs to be changed with TV's. Its not possible/feasible to have ONE set top box, or to integrate it into the TV. Satellite and Cable providers use custom hardware for a reason...they aren't about to hand everything over to Apple, we're talking thousands of companies with proprietary hardware here. This is bigger than just slapping a cable tv decoder in the box for the US.

----------

The iTunes Revolution: Reloaded.

This time around, it's shows and movies instead of music. The "Apple" TV is the new iPod.

Big difference: Apple are 5 years late to the game and have nothing to add to it. So no, its nothing like the iPod.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Lawsuits coming from cable companies in 3-2-1....

They sued to try and block Fios - I bet they will attempt to sue Apple. Should be interesting if this rings true what it will do to the industry.

If Apple works directly with the studios and develops its own distribution method, cable companies have nothing to sue over. Cable and satellite companies don't have exclusive distribution rights for the content they carry.

 

[rmwebs]

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)

There are people who still buy a 32 & 37" tv???

There are people who buy 14" TV's. Not everyone can splash out ~$1000 for a TV.

 

[flux73]

I disagree with the posts that state the various reasons Apple will not (or should not) enter the TV set market. If the stated reasons were that big of a hurdle, Apple shouldn't be in the desktop computer market for the same reason. They are and they are successful because they can provide hardware and software that's beautiful and easy to use, and for which many people can justify the extra expense. Furthermore, they enhance the functionality of many of other Apple's products - the Apple "ecosystem".

Now look at monitors. They are in the monitor market with their Cinema Displays. Yes, they aren't the market leaders (due to high pricing) and yet, they are able to maintain profitability. This is a product that doesn't really utilize (or be utilized by) the Apple ecosystem. You add in a computer and that adds functionality to the ecosystem and voila, you have the iMac. Furthermore, because of volume of sales, they are then able to lower the pricing to be much more competitive - to the point that there isn't much else that's comparable in experience for the price.

I don't know what the Apple TV is going to be yet, but I could see how they could build a set that with software built in that will add to the functionality of the ecosystem. e.g. If you have an iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, or Mac, adding the TV set will make everything a little more fun/slick/easy to use. There won't be a single TV out there that will offer you a comparable experience for any amount of money at any size (above 27"). All of you joking about Apple's premium pricing are ignoring the fact that in the last few years, Apple products have been coming out at VERY reasonable prices. Who can argue that the iPad, iPhone, or Macbook Air are overpriced? Similarly spec'd competitor products cost about the same, and sometimes even more.

IMO, the biggest challenge for this rumored product is content. Without it, it's going to be an uphill battle and Apple will not have control over the market even if they make significant headway. With the content, success is virtually assured. With $80 billion dollars in cash, I think Apple will be able to make this happen by brute force if they can't convince the content providers to do so on reasonable terms.

 

[inlovewithi]

There is no question Apple does this but coming out of the gates with such a small TV sets just makes me believe this rumors is crap or they are talking about ACDs and not HDTV sets.

A lot of people buy TVs that size. Maybe not here, but most of the people that I know have HDTVs around that size, so from my point of view, that's the mainstream size. So if I was running Apple and decided to get into TV market, knowing how people buy their Apple products, I would milk it the same way they do their other products. Why come out with TVs that 40+ inches, when you can build excitement year after year by increasing the screen size a couple of inches. Hey, not everyone is going to replace their Apple tv every year, but some will, and the publicity that will be there when Apple introduces their revolutionary 42" tv will also sell more TVs from people who still haven't bought one.

 

[KanosWRX]

If they are making TV's the product has already failed. Not many people will ditch their current 40" and higher TV's for a smaller TV that has some apple apps. Apple doesn't know what they are doing. People want to use the TV's they have now and won't buy a new one with a Apple logo just because.. It's not a little cheap device like a iPhone or something people upgrade every few years like a computer. People keep TV's for 7-10+ years. Unless apple plans on upgrading peoples TV's for free this is a failed product line already.

 

[macpro2000]

There are people who buy 14" TV's. Not everyone can splash out ~$1000 for a TV.

Problem is...if there are people who still buy 32" TVs, it's because of price, and therefore definitely won't be buying a 32" Apple then.

Nobody wants to decrease in screen size...only go bigger. I have a 73" Mits and understandably know Apple will prob never make something that big...but surely a 53-65". It would be good at least for the bedroom.

 

[*LTD*]

Big difference: Apple are 5 years late to the game and have nothing to add to it. So no, its nothing like the iPod.

I recall similar things were said about Apple's entry into smartphones.

 

[lhunter]

Predicting what Apple's iTV would look like

If I had to guess, based on existing rumors and Apple's history, here's what I envision them releasing.
- iMac for a TV - Apple isn't know for playing well with other device manufacturers, so i think they will want to build an all-in-one device like the iMac. This means an included BluRay player and possibly a low end receiver connecting to wireless speakers...they will eliminate a large majority of the wires (remember the old iMac vs Dell comparisons?) http://www.google.com/imgres?q=imac...&w=426&h=787&ei=5F77TsfvCYrO2AX639WUAQ&zoom=1
- Higher than 1080P resolution as Apple delivers this today. It would make delivering PC/Mac content to the TV more seamless. I think they would also allow Macs to easily connect to the TV via "Airplay like" functionality to use as a monitor.
- iChat - Video conferencing
- Siri - Controlled via iOS device or Siri remote. This, along with a new content model and all-in-one approach, will simplify the TV remote needed. You'll be able to speak the channel, show, etc... for whatever you want to watch.
- Custom content selection - Lower monthly fees is where Apple will get the ROI they need to justify a higher TV price point.
- Apple TV - Of course built in Apple Tv3 functionality

Interested in other's thoughts.

 

[jaredpetersen]

I can make predictions too.

The new Apple TV will include an 8GB iPod Touch for the remote control.

It'll have a built in iSight camera so you can make video calls to your friends while watching a show/movie and you can provide commentary a la MST3K.

 

[chirpie]

Even if Apple is getting a TV ready for launch, I think it's bad timing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/business/tv-prices-fall-squeezing-most-makers-and-sellers.html


For Apple, when it comes to computers the price premium is justified. It subsidizes the OS and the software it comes with. But even with their enviable brand power, I think most people would rather pay for the cheaper display of another manufacturer and just have a box that's separate. It gets you two things:

1 - Easy to upgrade from one model to the next without chucking the whole TV.

2 - Easy to get the content on a larger screen

In the far out there idea camp: What would actually be kind of novel is if Apple released a TV with a section on the back that let you slide in the next model of Apple TV. Like a swap-able module of sorts. Then everyone can get what they want. Some can have their apple designed TV with the user experience they expect. Others can have their box only set up, which they can afford. You wouldn't even need to splinter the Apple TV market to make it happen, which keeps the manufacturing costs down.

I like the video conferencing and Siri ideas others have posted for features you'd get in an all in one TV from Apple. It'd be fun to get out of bed in the morning and ask the TV to display my inbox and the weather as well as traffic while I'm brushing my teeth. Kind of like those "smart mirror" ideas I've seen showcased.

Anyway. Throw that post on the pile.

 

[steve333]

I was hoping Apple might shock us and actually build something in the United States.

 

[gugy]

A lot of people buy TVs that size. Maybe not here, but most of the people that I know have HDTVs around that size, so from my point of view, that's the mainstream size. So if I was running Apple and decided to get into TV market, knowing how people buy their Apple products, I would milk it the same way they do their other products. Why come out with TVs that 40+ inches, when you can build excitement year after year by increasing the screen size a couple of inches. Hey, not everyone is going to replace their Apple tv every year, but some will, and the publicity that will be there when Apple introduces their revolutionary 42" tv will also sell more TVs from people who still haven't bought one.

Making TV sets is a bad choice IMO. Most people have sets already and in the end they are just dumb displays. Just make a fantastic ATV box and new distribution model. If that then becomes a revolution, possibly down the road come up with a TV.
Right now the hurdle is mostly on how content is distribute.
While there is market for smaller sets, the bottom line here is TV are a very small profit margin segment. Great quality manufactures like Pioneer ended their business because of it. There is a very strong competition out there and very nice sets at low prices.
Add to the that huge warehouse costs and distribution costs as well as real estate space to have all those displays around it just doesn't add as a nice business model to jump in.
We'll see. For me the money is on ATV box and a new distribution model.

 

[flux73]

There are people who buy 14" TV's. Not everyone can splash out ~$1000 for a TV.

Not everyone can splash out ~$500-900 for a tablet. And yet, the iPad sells like hotcakes.

No one's forcing you to shell out money you don't have. Apple will decide what price they can offer it at. And obviously their decision will depend on the cost to build it vs how much they think they can sell it for while maximizing the number of buyers. If your finances don't allow you to buy something that Apple sells, that sucks and I'm sorry (and I mean that sincerely). But that doesn't mean Apple won't sell bucket loads of it.

And why is everyone already making predictions about how expensive it will be? Everyone predicted the iPad would come out at a base price of $1000 and would immediately flop.

 

[Diode]

If Apple works directly with the studios and develops its own distribution method, cable companies have nothing to sue over. Cable and satellite companies don't have exclusive distribution rights for the content they carry.

If it somehow hurts their revenue stream you bet they will looking things over with a fine tooth comb to see if they can.

 

[576316]

APPLE CAN'T USE iTV.

lol, just so I can be the one that says it again.

APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV. APPLE CAN'T USE iTV.


Already a TV station in the UK called "iTV". Then again, Apple would still try to claim it was their idea first. Even though the TV channel existed before the iPod did. xD

 

[damir00]

The problem I'm having is that there is no point to Apple doing this unless they have the content lined up. When iTMS and iTunes were ramping up, there were constant leaks about licensing negotiations - but there is virtually nothing being whispered about ongoing movie/tv talks.

Consumers are spending $X for movies and TV. Apple won't change that amount, it will just change how it's distributed. What they're going after is the current providers' slice reducing cable cos and Verizon and etc to Fat Pipe providers.

And 32" is not going to happen. It would exclude vast majority of the market (most common size is 46" and has been for years) and Apple is smarter than that.

 

[alent1234]

If Apple works directly with the studios and develops its own distribution method, cable companies have nothing to sue over. Cable and satellite companies don't have exclusive distribution rights for the content they carry.

the studios are the problem, they are the ones telling the cable companies to bundle the channels. if it wasn't for the studios sports would be a separate tier and prices would be a lot cheaper for everyone else

 

[nemaslov]

It seems most of the posters here are not home theater people. This could be HUGE. Home TV still is complicated for many. We have a 5.1 home set up. Rotel components, B&W speakers and a 50" Panasonic Pro monitor from almost 6 years ago. The monitor does not have a tuner but at that time it was 7K and looked better than any consumer model. It still looks great . Now 5 Panasonic updates later these pro models of the updated 50" can be bought for around $1500. on line. Still love them better than the consumer versions (better blacks) and Plasma looks better than LCD for films. More natural and visible from any angle.

All this aside with the remotes and back and forth from the cable company and music inputs, it is hard for others to turn on or change inputs without a bit of teaching . Almost without a manual. If Steve Jobs words are true, then he probably did get the TV thing right. Sounds like he did "crack it." It needs to be simplified and elegant like all Apple products.

I am considering updating by monitor now but thought about waiting a year to see what Apple comes up with. I'll probably get a new one soon and can always pass it on to a family member if a 50" Apple version comes out.

Remember att the iPad naysayers? Movie theater patronage is down and great home theater is still growing. Apple will probably kick ass here. Yes first with smaller screens but then with larger.

 

[zombierunner]

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)

32 and 37" is too small I think. Most people would buy 40+ inches tv.

You know if they just put a hdmi in port on their iMacs .. they'd sell a looooot of iMacs

 

[damir00]

Super Bowl - the venue of choice for the "1984" ad - is beng streamed this year.

Food for thought...

 

[louis Fashion]

More slave labor jobs will be created too.

happy, employed slaves make good products, just ask Wal Mart.

 

[nemaslov]

Remember when people thought Apple would never get into the mobile phone biz? Since they control everything, most thought they would never go along with a third party carrier. That seemed to work a bit for them.

----------

Making TV sets is a bad choice IMO. Most people have sets already and in the end they are just dumb displays. Just make a fantastic ATV box and new distribution model. If that then becomes a revolution, possibly down the road come up with a TV.
Right now the hurdle is mostly on how content is distribute.
While there is market for smaller sets, the bottom line here is TV are a very small profit margin segment. Great quality manufactures like Pioneer ended their business because of it. There is a very strong competition out there and very nice sets at low prices.
Add to the that huge warehouse costs and distribution costs as well as real estate space to have all those displays around it just doesn't add as a nice business model to jump in.
We'll see. For me the money is on ATV box and a new distribution model.

A very very thin screen will probably take up less warehouse space (if packaged right) than a very Thick iMac box. This will happen and Apple will again be a game changer. I believe this will be new technology make the scene almost as thin as an iPad. Just you wait.