Gene Munster Still Believes in the Apple Television Set, Thinks 2016 Launch Likely

[nutmac]

I just want a "dumb" screen and then a cheaper box that I could swap out as needed. Screens don't change very often... but playback hardware certainly does.

Actually, playback hardware don't change all that often either. Video game consoles, for instance, get update roughly once every 7 years. That may be longer than TV, but it isn't as often as one think.

Don't get me wrong, I think Apple should continue to make set top box, but I think there's a big market for integrated TV set as well, especially those that have grown to love Apple's industrial design and fully integrated ecosystem.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Actually, playback hardware don't change all that often either. Video game consoles, for instance, get update roughly once every 7 years. That may be longer than TV, but it isn't as often as one think.

Don't get me wrong, I think Apple should continue to make set top box, but I think there's a big market for integrated TV set as well, especially those that have grown to love Apple's industrial design and fully integrated ecosystem.

True... but I was speaking in theory.

Imagine you spent $1000 on a TV with the best h.264 decoder on the market.

And then h.265 becomes popular. Or whatever the next thing may be.

It would be easier and more desirable to replace a $100 box than a whole TV.

Again... it was just a generalization.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Personally I wouldn't want "smart" hardware integrated into a TV anyway. If we've learned anything... it's that things change waaay too fast. File formats get added, processors get faster, etc.

I just want a "dumb" screen and then a cheaper box that I could swap out as needed. Screens don't change very often... but playback hardware certainly does.

Apple has had the right idea all these years by making the AppleTV a separate box that you add to whatever TV you happen to have. It's a lower barrier of entry.

While I think you are right, to play devil's advocate, the same arguments used to be made about computer screens and desktop towers. They said people don't want them integrated, that screens are upgraded less often than the main computer box, etc. Then we got the imac and desktop-replacement quality laptops, and Apple sells fewer and fewer headless macs every year.

 

[nutmac]

Imagine you spent $1000 on a TV with the best h.264 decoder on the market.

And then h.265 becomes popular. Or whatever the next thing may be.

It would be easier and more desirable to replace a $100 box than a whole TV.

Your concern is entirely valid.

But as I stated in earlier comment, Apple can use more future proof components than set top box. And nothing prevents you from using newer generation Apple TV set top box on Apple's TV set.

 

[69650]

What a dick. The Apple TV set isn't going to happen mate. Clearly Apple don't think it's worth the effort.

They can't even make an updated Display to go with their "flagship" Mac Pro.

 

[Michael Scrip]

While I think you are right, to play devil's advocate, the same arguments used to be made about computer screens and desktop towers. They said people don't want them integrated, that screens are upgraded less often than the main computer box, etc. Then we got the imac and desktop-replacement quality laptops, and Apple sells fewer and fewer headless macs every year.

Apple has clearly loved the all-in-one computer form-factor since the 80s... and that made up the bulk of Apple's desktop systems.

If you look at every other vendor... most of their desktop computer are separate screens and towers... with only a handful of all-in-ones.

So I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of "people don't want them integrated"

I think it's a waste when the computer parts are integrated into the monitor. I have a friend with a 2009 iMac. The computer parts are getting kinda old... but the screen is fine. She'll likely buy another iMac... which includes another screen.

But that's the way Apple does it, so there's not much you can do about it.

Perhaps the reason Apple sells fewer and fewer headless Macs is because of their product lineup. Your other choices are the underpowered Mac Mini... or the rather expensive Mac Pro.

Gee... I wonder why the iMac is Apple's best-selling desktop

 

[Reds622]

If an Apple TV ever does happen, it's going to be a small Apple TV Box... And a projector. A projector that is a substantial technological improvement. That is what I predict. It would allow Apple not to have to make a very large product, while potentially keeping higher margins, a redefining the space. Imagine a living room that no longer requires a large object to watch television, but produced a better picture that anything else that is available. That would be a real breakthrough.

 

[alexgowers]

I can see apple doing both a 5k monitor and a new Apple TV but not a dedicated TV all in one. The new Apple TV should have games a remote game pad with cable TV /sky pvr built in. It's a huge missed area not to have apps on the device to. It's an really exciting thing to be exploring but I fear it is not a high priority for them right now..

 

[Mystic386]

I'd like to do an analysis of Gene Munster (analyst) for Piper Jaffray.

1/ He seems a little tardy, loose tie, no suit jacket and a little frazzled looking. That doesn't convey confident analyst.

2/ He says looking back we got it wrong. This is part of his annual penance and we have to go back and look at where we got it wrong. - Actually Gene, penance is punishment. Going back and looking where we got it wrong is not penance.

3/ He refers consistently to "we" got it wrong. He's the kind of guy who when he gets it wrong he makes it a group thing and says "we" got it wrong. Will it be I was right when we are right?

4/ He says Apple historically release a new product every 3 - 6 years. Since the Apple Watch was released in 2014 this means we should see an Apple TV in 2016 he figures. Okay Gene, you've failed again and before you've even started. 2014 plus 3-6 years equals 2017 - 2020. An analyst that can add between 3 - 6 years to 2014 and get 2016 really seems a cut below the mark.

5/ And is the Apple watch released in 2014 as Gene suggests or is it 2015?

It's seems that given the historical facts to date that Gene Munster isn't very good at this job of being an analyst. Gene also shows a poor level of attention to detail skills. I expect an analyst to have high attention to detail skills. I wonder whose paying this guy to take guesses. Seems many on this forum could do better.

 

[dazed]

Just give me a Apple TV with an SDK so people can make cool app and games. It's amazing how far behind Apple are at this.

 

[Swift]

Like a Broken Clock

He's right twice a day.

I think it's going to happen this year. It's not a hardware deal, it's a rights deal. What has to happen is that Apple has to offer subscriptions to various services. HBO, all these premium channels, have to make their entire libraries open to the public, not just the cable and satellite companies. A lot of content providers have to break free from the shackles. $18 a month I pay for on cable for HBO. I prefer to subscribe elsewhere. What's important is the speed of your broadband. The new HVEC codec will make 4K the same load as 1080p. An Apple screen could look damn fine. Retina display, anybody? But the final piece is the content. When the big producers open their entire licensed content to Apple TV, and you rely on the leagues for baseball and football streaming,HBO, Showtime, etc, cost you the same cable pays for it, why watch another Kardashian? Another decorating or chef or build a car show? I'll be very happy.

The hardware, I bet, is ready now. It's the content deals that will make it. Break the monopoly!

 

[the8thark]

Gene Munster is talking out of his anal passages here. Well they are called ANALysts for a reason.

• Most consumers do not replace their television set every year or every two years.
• Most consumers do not change their Apple hardware every one or two years (iPhone excepted).
• Televisions are not sold on plans like iPhones are to encourage a 1-2 year customer purchase cycle.
• The TV is a good HTPC and cheap enough so people can replace it when a new one comes out.

Just a few reasons why this analyst is wrong.

Apple will just give the TV more and more content as the content deals are done.

 

[samcraig]

They don't need to produce a TV. Modern TVs are really monitors. Better to have a high quality monitor and a cheap external device that can either be replaced and/or updated easily. Content is what's important.

It's been said many times on various threads - Apple has, for whatever their reason, sat on the capabilities of Apple TV by not opening up channels to 3rd parties in the way Roku has - and also having an app store. Throw in a new UI, and it would sell.

I love my Apple TVs - but now only use them for playing iTunes movies. I have two ATV2s. When it was time to decide on upgrading/updating, etc - There was nothing really compelling on Apple's front. Conversely, as it was the same time as I was cutting the cord - Roku won me over easily. I also have a chromecast which I use on one TV and throw youtube videos and netflix on easily from my tablet. And I just got a Kindle fire stick because - at $19 - it was a no brainer and can be a travel accessory.

At $99 and very little differentiation (other than it's Apple and has Airplay), to me - it's not a compelling device anymore.

 

[furi0usbee]

This will be cable's last stand. So I doubt we'll see an Apple TV set with quality content at a reasonable price anytime soon. They will fight the bundle until their final breath. HBOGo going stand-alone seems like a win for cord cutters. But when you find out they are charging $19.99 mo.. let's just add this up.

HBOGo: $19.99
Netflix: $8.99
Hulu Plus: $7.99
CBS: $5.99 (then add other networks for similar pricing)
Amazon: $99/year

So as you can see, the cord cutters will actually be paying more than a bundle eventually. And when Comcast and the big guys start charging *more* for stand-alone internet but offer a discount when you have a cable bundle, it will be a no-brainer to stay bundled.

If Apple can ever come up with a $30.00/mo subscription plan where you can choose say 10 channels of your choice, I'd get that. I don't even know if I watch 10 channels total.

 

[koa]

He's right twice a day.

I think it's going to happen this year. It's not a hardware deal, it's a rights deal. What has to happen is that Apple has to offer subscriptions to various services. HBO, all these premium channels, have to make their entire libraries open to the public, not just the cable and satellite companies. A lot of content providers have to break free from the shackles. $18 a month I pay for on cable for HBO. I prefer to subscribe elsewhere. What's important is the speed of your broadband. The new HVEC codec will make 4K the same load as 1080p. An Apple screen could look damn fine. Retina display, anybody? But the final piece is the content. When the big producers open their entire licensed content to Apple TV, and you rely on the leagues for baseball and football streaming,HBO, Showtime, etc, cost you the same cable pays for it, why watch another Kardashian? Another decorating or chef or build a car show? I'll be very happy.

The hardware, I bet, is ready now. It's the content deals that will make it. Break the monopoly!

The Kardashians should build a lunch wagon (with time constraints). Just sayin.

 

[octothorpe8]

Higher margins.
Some folks will pay twice as much for an Apple tv
after it's rolled down a Vogue runway by Jony.

Yeah, the design and feature set would have to really be a game changer for this to work. TVs hit "commodity" status quite a while ago. But I guess if anybody could pull it off, it would be Apple.

 

[AppleP59]

How does this douche boat captain continue to get airtime???

Is this guy for real!?

If he keeps saying it for the next 50 years it will likely come true at some point!

I really thought he was Al Bundy from Marries with Children.

 

[djdj]

Why does anybody listen to this guy? He's never been even close to right about anything.

 

[chiefsilverback]

This will be cable's last stand. So I doubt we'll see an Apple TV set with quality content at a reasonable price anytime soon. They will fight the bundle until their final breath. HBOGo going stand-alone seems like a win for cord cutters. But when you find out they are charging $19.99 mo.. let's just add this up.

HBOGo: $19.99
Netflix: $8.99
Hulu Plus: $7.99
CBS: $5.99 (then add other networks for similar pricing)
Amazon: $99/year

So as you can see, the cord cutters will actually be paying more than a bundle eventually. And when Comcast and the big guys start charging *more* for stand-alone internet but offer a discount when you have a cable bundle, it will be a no-brainer to stay bundled.

If Apple can ever come up with a $30.00/mo subscription plan where you can choose say 10 channels of your choice, I'd get that. I don't even know if I watch 10 channels total.

This has always been where the whole cord cutting thing falls apart for me.

Today I pay $120/month for a FiOS TV and internet bundle including HBO.

I could switch to an internet only service for $55/month (25Mbps) and then have $65/month to buy content, but assuming I'm doing this to save money I really want to be paying as little as possible so where does that leave me?

I could invest in an antenna, an Elgato tv tuner and 2nd mini to get free to air channels and have a DVR, but now I've just spent a whole year's savings and if I want to buy Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead and a few other shows I'm distinctly worse off! No matter how expensive we think the current model is, it really isn't when you compare it to the competition.

The "$30/month for any ten channels" idea does have merit but are Fox, ABC etc... part of your 10 and ad free, or do you get them with ads and have them 'free' alongside your 10?

 

[bushman4]

Munster has never gotten any EPS or stats right on Apple yet!!! So his belief in a Apple television set in 2016 is worthless at best.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

So, we've went from to 2011 to 2012 to 2013 to 2014 to 2015... to 2016

2017 sounds like a real possibility now

 

[furi0usbee]

The "$30/month for any ten channels" idea does have merit but are Fox, ABC etc... part of your 10 and ad free, or do you get them with ads and have them 'free' alongside your 10?

Well here is my thing, I could even skip channels/networks altogether... I simply want shows. I think I follow 6-8 shows. So in reality, they can keep their entire network, just give me the shows for a lesser price.

I would need Fox News and CNN, jus so I can hear both sides and *try* to find the truth therein. But after that, LIVE tv really isn't an issue for me, as I get all of my shows the day after anyway. And when the NFL finally comes around to the 21st century, I think I'll be all set.

But here is the problem. I pay $25.00/year for what is essentially NFL Sunday Ticket, but not quite... but HD streams online. I can get most shows I watch free from legal sources, and you know the other side...

So HBOGo at $19.99/mo doesn't make sense for me because I only follow a couple current shows and it's cheaper to get them online or via iTunes Season Pass.

----------

It just goes to show that if Eddie Munster says something enough times, eventually it *could* come to pass. This guy's (probably) been predicting an Apple TV set even before Job's cracked it....