Job Posting Sparks Speculation Regarding Apple Television Set

[*LTD*]

Nice Strawman argument

Even a powerful Windows box . . . is still a Windows box. There's no getting past that.

And besides, chances are, it will look fugly beside a Mac. No one's got the kind of synergy between hardware and software that Apple does. Again, that's because no can pull off successfully the same business model that Apple does.

 

[*LTD*]

double

 

[mrr]

I don't think this job blurb means much.

Engineers who do the current AppleTV product need to know about TV in general, so I would take this with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, I would love to see Apple branded TVs.

 

[MacAgnostic]

Even a powerful Windows box . . . is still a Windows box. There's no getting past that.

And besides, chances are, it will look fugly beside a Mac.

Yup, and if you need one there often are better choices than Macs.

Funny, once I get a decent keyboard, mouse and 24" monitor, I'm not really looking at Apple decor anymore.

On Topic:
Apple makes only one monitor size (27") with an arguably goofy attached cable system. They clearly are NOT in the computer monitor market. Why would anyone imagine they would consider entering the TV display market?

 

[notabadname]

so you are saying all apple products that have a display are samsung? I mean all apple products have displays outsourced... So by your idealogy, everyone of them is not apple but rather the one that producted the display?

There is a big difference, at least to me, in what we buy in a phone, iPod or laptop as compared to a TV. Generally, TVs' ARE the display. If you have a 50 inch Samsung screen in an "Apple TV", then you essentially have a re-branded TV, using the same screen, backlighting etc as Samsung's own product with the same panel. An iPod Touch can't really be a re-branded "R1" MP3 player because they simply are so different in capability, interface and feature sets, and there is so much more going on than just the display. But for most people, a TV comes down to; is it 1080p, what's the contrast ratio, what is the viewing angle, what is the refresh rate? These are what video reviews are based on. So at least to me, if TV maker Samsung starts supplying what is essentially the TV and what we see on our wall showing the moving pictures to Apple for an Apple Monitor, yes I will consider it to essentially be a Samsung TV with a pretty Apple LOGO on it. I don't think many people see an iPad as being a "re-branded" anything, even though Apple is outsourcing the panel.

So, at least for me, there is a difference in what becomes "re-branding" of a product, particularly if 90% of what the product is really about, comes from another company in a single assembly, and is used for the identical purpose by the supplier. Apple's use of their custom ordered and manufactured iPad display was not in use by the vendor for the same (or any) purpose.

 

[Imhotep397]

I don't have much of a problem with this except for if they don't buy Sony first. If they want to get outside of pedestrian numbers of a couple of million it only makes sense that acquire some expertise on how to become popular in the living room. Apple TV is interesting, but it's not compeling enough to dethrone LG, Samsung, Playstation, XBox and Wii. Apple's going to have to go through all of those companies to get the kinds of numbers because they're not really interested in the television market (if they are actually interested in this at all) they're interested in getting Apple branded Black Box functionality in 100-150 million homes to the tune of between $799-$2200 before monthly fees.

 

[AidenShaw]

Win7 is still inferior to OS X.

In what ways? And how can something as broad as an OS be trivially classed as "superior" vs "inferior" (except in the mind of an Apple fan)?

Apple will be better than Windows at some things, Windows will be better at others, and for a large number of things they'll be roughly the same.

There are quite a few posts here that acknowledge that Windows 7 is really a rather decent OS. It also supports a lot of hardware features that many Apple fans dream of.

Your idea of an "operating system" is stuck in the past. Why not bring it up to date to match your usually progressive and forward-looking social views? I'm surprised.

And your idea of an "OS" is stuck on "what Apple does today". And *today*, OSX and Windows do pretty much the same thing (except for touch screen support - OSX doesn't seem to have that yet). The biggest difference between the two is hardware support - OSX doesn't support fingerprint login or BD playback like my Windows laptops - or a host of third party hardware devices (although that's usually due to the third party not bothering with Apple's very small market share).

In 10 years, the idea that 1000 Mbps "always on" connectivity is ubiquitous may be a reality - as well as what is sometimes laughingly called the "cloud" today.

When that happens, neither today's OSX nor Windows will be adequate in their current form. Nor will our current hardware.

10 years ago, a 10 GB hard drive was $79 - today $82 will buy a 2000 GB hard drive. 10 years ago a toilet seat Ibook was $1499 for a 366 MHz PPC G3, 64 MiB RAM, 10 GB hard drive and CD-ROM with 56K modem.

10 years from now, things like cheap ubiquitous gigabit wireless connectivity may change the playing field.

 

[3282868]

Pioneer

Pioneer plasmas were the best on the market, especially the Elite/Kuro models. My friends in the movie industry (mostly line producers and marketers) have all used Pioneer plasma's. Although much brighter, LED's don't have the true blacks that plasma screens offer. Many consider plasma's as better suited for cinema and LED's for computer systems used for design/editing. (Fact: Apple used/may still use Pioneer Plasma's in their stores to display the AppleTV)

Pioneer shut down their plasma division as the expensive panels placed the displays in a high end niche market (my 50" Kuro Elite was ~$7000 two years ago). Panasonic bought out that division (Pioneer still makes AVR's/BD Players, etc) and I have heard "rumblings" that Apple is interested in working with Panasonic's newly acquired Pioneer division.

For a long time I've imagined a display/DVR/Internet combo, negating the need for a cable box while incorporating a WiFi and/or RJ-45 connection for the internet/iTunes/etc. A TV/DVR/Intenet display with an AVR and speakers and you have a nice "Bose"-esque streamlined home entertainment system.

The downside, once again, is that Apple is pushing their recent change from "Apple COMPUTERS" to "Apple ELECTRONICS, Inc."

 

[mambodancer]

"Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has long advocated for just such a product, arguing that an integrated TV with DVR-like functionality and access to an iTunes television subscription service could offer a compelling alternative to traditional cable subscription packages."

Does Gene not understand how broadband cable TV & internet work and how the two are inextricably connected? First, Comcast basically offers this functionality today in Xfinity with iOS apps. More importantly, Gene, exactly how do you "cut" the Broadband cable and just go internet only when the two are bundled by the cable provider and add disincentives to drop the cableTV portion of your service? When I called Comcast customer service last, to do just this thing, here's the result that would have happened:
1) Currently my 20Mbs internet service would drop to 12Mbs
2) The bundled price of cableTV plus internet would drop by $5 per month

So, Gene, maybe cutting the cable with your provider results in significant savings but an 8Mbs drop in bandwidth for a $5/month savings from a company threatening Netflix with a surcharge (and don't you think they'll do the same thing with iTunes and other streaming services that compete with them)on top of a 260GB download limit just doesn't seem like a good idea to me and it probably doesn't seem like a good idea to Apple either.

 

[3282868]

Comcast

Enough said. Capitalism at its finest. Free market? HA My family lives in Rochester, NY. Time Warner and Frontier are the only providers, Frontier uses DirectTV or Dish (I forget which one) and Time Warner is the only cable provider. Apparently Rochester, NY is a closed market for Time Warner, while FiOS has a hub in Buffalo that serves Syracuse, Albany, etc. but by law passes Rochester, NY. The result: if I were to move to Rochester with my current Time Warner package, it would be more then double.

In this instance, capitalism squelches technology, much like the oil companies squelch hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Follow the money.

 

[fox10078]

"Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has long advocated for just such a product, arguing that an integrated TV with DVR-like functionality and access to an iTunes television subscription service could offer a compelling alternative to traditional cable subscription packages."

Does Gene not understand how broadband cable TV & internet work and how the two are inextricably connected? First, Comcast basically offers this functionality today in Xfinity with iOS apps. More importantly, Gene, exactly how do you "cut" the Broadband cable and just go internet only when the two are bundled by the cable provider and add disincentives to drop the cableTV portion of your service? When I called Comcast customer service last, to do just this thing, here's the result that would have happened:
1) Currently my 20Mbs internet service would drop to 12Mbs
2) The bundled price of cableTV plus internet would drop by $5 per month

So, Gene, maybe cutting the cable with your provider results in significant savings but an 8Mbs drop in bandwidth for a $5/month savings from a company threatening Netflix with a surcharge (and don't you think they'll do the same thing with iTunes and other streaming services that compete with them)on top of a 260GB download limit just doesn't seem like a good idea to me and it probably doesn't seem like a good idea to Apple either.

What are you on about? I got 20 Mb from time warner, and have TV from dish network, the two are not tied together.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Yup, and if you need one there often are better choices than Macs.

Funny, once I get a decent keyboard, mouse and 24" monitor, I'm not really looking at Apple decor anymore.

Right. You want an big ugly Beige box sitting out on your desk or next to your television.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Nice charts, but they don't have any information about the systems involved.

I said that $300 Dells were trash compared to the business class Dells in the same price range as Apples.

Can this be surprising?

And I'm telling you I've have known personally several people who were former Dell owners and thought they were getting off well with a $300 computer only to be very angry at the support they got when their computer bit the dust. In the end they paid more than I did for my one mac that lasted several years more than theirs and they need their computer for the same purposes as I do. Their experience is typical, hence the graphs.

And no its not surprising. Knowing so many former angry Dell customers as I personally do I'm shocked the numbers are that good.

To sum up Dell's business strategy: Subsidize high end computers by selling horrible low end computers in large quantities just above cost, while squeezing some profit out of it by offering horrible customer support.

So thank all those angry Dell customers for buying so many of those rotten computers in large quantities so that you could get a good deal on one of their high end machines.

There is a big difference, at least to me, in what we buy in a phone, iPod or laptop as compared to a TV. Generally, TVs' ARE the display. If you have a 50 inch Samsung screen in an "Apple TV", then you essentially have a re-branded TV, using the same screen, backlighting etc as Samsung's own product with the same panel.

If Apple were to actually do this (chuckle) it wouldn't be rebranding. Rebranding is taking the exact same product and putting a different logo on it. An Apple TV would have specific components delivered by Apple. Unless Apple takes some other companies television that just happens to run modified iOS for some strange reason and slaps a logo on it that isn't rebranding.

 

[chinesechikn]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why?

Well for starters I don't see this as a great use of resources for Apple. I would like more resources directed towards OSX. Also, The display would be almost certainly overpriced (for the record I don't think of many of Apple's products as being overpriced...some however are very overpriced) with "features" mostly being iTunes related which I frankly can't stand. I doubt it would support Netflix streaming or Pandora natively (which are superior to iTunes IMO) as many televisions do now. I guess it doesn't matter as I could always vote with my wallet but I would rather Apple leave televisions to other companies. All that being said, it would most likely be a beautiful piece of hardware, though how many TVs aren't beautiful these days?

I don't understand why people are against things like this... Like the possibility of apple developing a TV.
I for one would be really interested in what Apple could offer in this field.... they have a good track record of taking devices to another level (eg "revolutionary").
Apple has a knack of reinventing a concept and creating ecosystems that change the way we use technology.
It may take them 3 years to release a TV? Whatever, but I say Bring It On.
As for whether it is newsworthy for Macrumors... Of course!!... Why not, IT'S MACRUMORS!!! It's all fun and games! If you don't want to read this, go to CNN or something!!!

 

[gctwnl]

Given the poor wording, what was probably meant was "Apple TV" not just TV.

Gene Munster may think this is a great idea, but true TV/video display technology innovation is far from Apple's core strength and the bulk TV market is cutthroat competition. Whatever they can add, is to the UI/App side of things and they can do that through something like ATV connected via HDMI.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

so you are saying all apple products that have a display are samsung? I mean all apple products have displays outsourced... So by your idealogy, everyone of them is not apple but rather the one that producted the display?

Anyways an Apple TV (actual TV) could be a good idea if apple can find a way to differentiate itself. The time for a TV isn't right as many are clued to their cable box, meaning apple would be no different than samsung in that case. But assuming iTunes content can go cheaper, maybe a monthly subscription for TV shows and movies and you got yourself something unique. Netflix and Hulu are not iTunes, so Apple has a chance to be unique. Plus they can integreate their ecosystem, Apps, music etc and definitely make a huge impact.

Plus just as the iphone isn't truly made by apple (display, components, etc) the quality and software on it makes it a unique product. Same can be applied to the TV market. If they can give the TV a twist, both in software and hardware, they can stand out.

Last but not least, Integrating other Apple products with the TV, such as your iPad/iPod as a controller (remote controller, gaming controller, etc), which they already kind of do with the AppleTV box, is another way they can differentiate themselves.

So what do I think is the reason they didn't get into this market yet, though they are keeping a close eye on it? Well its because people are clued to cable, making it hard to get people to give up cable and go for itunes. Without that advantage, apple wont bother going into that market. Not to mention licensing issues prevent apple from offering Tv shows subscriptions.

Basically ones Apple can add subscriptions, offer low prices, bring apps to the AppleTV and find ways to differentiate itself from others, you will see them start to enter that market. It's really all about timing here, just like when they came out with the iPhone in 2007, it was time to change the mobile world.

Thanks
AE

LG makes Apple displays because the nation that invented the TV has let it slip. More yellow screens please.

 

[Padraig]

"Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has long advocated for just such a product, arguing that an integrated TV with DVR-like functionality and access to an iTunes television subscription service could offer a compelling alternative to traditional cable subscription packages."

Does Gene not understand how broadband cable TV & internet work and how the two are inextricably connected? First, Comcast basically offers this functionality today in Xfinity with iOS apps. More importantly, Gene, exactly how do you "cut" the Broadband cable and just go internet only when the two are bundled by the cable provider and add disincentives to drop the cableTV portion of your service? When I called Comcast customer service last, to do just this thing, here's the result that would have happened:
1) Currently my 20Mbs internet service would drop to 12Mbs
2) The bundled price of cableTV plus internet would drop by $5 per month

So, Gene, maybe cutting the cable with your provider results in significant savings but an 8Mbs drop in bandwidth for a $5/month savings from a company threatening Netflix with a surcharge (and don't you think they'll do the same thing with iTunes and other streaming services that compete with them)on top of a 260GB download limit just doesn't seem like a good idea to me and it probably doesn't seem like a good idea to Apple either.

All Gene Munster knows is how to try and drive up AAPL for his employers, beyond that he is a joke. I'd pay as much attention to what comes out his mouth as I would some crack addict.

 

[Fubar1977]

I can`t see an Apple branded TV happening, it`s just not what Apple are about really.
Apple TV has always been a bit of a pet-project of Steve`s and one I can see vanishing quietly over the next year or so.

Anyone remember the Pippin?
Same thing, not Apples core market.

 

[camelsnot]

Doa.

 

[0815]

I know I feel so "screwed" by Apple.

I want to see them make one for no other reason but to see their brilliance when it comes to screwing over content providers and customers in this new market. It's popcorn time

I hate it when they give me new products that I love, or completely change an industry or a product category then everyone runs to copy them. And I really hate it when I buy their products and I don't have to fiddle with them all the time to keep them running.

I'm sooooo screwed by Apple... and can't wait for my next screwing!

Even those people who 'hate' Apple and feel 'screwed' (even though they don't use it) should see what change Apple brings to the industry. Does anybody remember the original Android prototype, the one before they took clues from the iPhone? Here a reminder:

This was Googles plan for Android !! Looked like a Blackberry copy ... Every Android user should be glad that Apple 'screwed' the industry and consumers and introduced a new type of smart phone, otherwise would we would all be stuck with Blackberry Clones.

that said - I don't see the point in a TV from Apple, and I don't see that coming, but I am ready to be surprised so see what soon everybody else copies.

 

[emulator]

Doa.

If Apple update their computers on yearly basis, instead of every 3-4 months, imagine how often they would update this TV, every 4-5 years?

 

[Fubar1977]

Apple has always admired Sony and I think they will indeed get into the TV set business or have integration with the sets UI.

No Way.
At best they might partner with a manufacturer such as Sony or LG to feature built in Apple TV.
Still really doubt it tho.

 

[notabadname]

If Apple were to actually do this (chuckle) it wouldn't be rebranding. Rebranding is taking the exact same product and putting a different logo on it. An Apple TV would have specific components delivered by Apple. Unless Apple takes some other companies television that just happens to run modified iOS for some strange reason and slaps a logo on it that isn't rebranding.

If you read my post, I always refer to it as "essentially" re-branded. My point is that so much of what a TV is, and how it is reviewed and rated IS the panel. So buying an Apple monitor that Samsung made the screen for, would ESSENTIALLY be like buying a Samsung branded TV. Running widgets and stuff on a TV involves a very small processor and makes up less than 1% of the mass/components of the TV. A TV and its quality, is all about the screen and technology that creates its display, whether LED backlit, plasma or traditional backlit LCD.

 

[Tonepoet]

Hmm... This article may simply be grasping at straws but something about a 40+ inch Apple Cinema Display as a T.V. sounds kinda right. How many 1440p+ TVs are there on the marketplace right now? Like none? If internet connections grow faster and Light Peak takes off I could see that being a big success, since in theory they could deliver the highest resolution content on the highest resolution screen on the market. Having an all in one device has its advantages too, since you can utilize otherwise wasted space or make connections at the interior which external connectivity standards don't quite yet allow for.

Also note that the only non-apple product on active display in an Apple Story often tended to be the HDTV they hooked up to the Mac Pro. I'm not sure if they do it anymore now that they've got the 27" cinema display but the inches it added are definitively impressive even in spite of the Res. loss from the 24 inch displays.

 

[*LTD*]

Given the poor wording, what was probably meant was "Apple TV" not just TV.

Gene Munster may think this is a great idea, but true TV/video display technology innovation is far from Apple's core strength and the bulk TV market is cutthroat competition. Whatever they can add, is to the UI/App side of things and they can do that through something like ATV connected via HDMI.

Apple can walk into virtually any market with a more or less even chance of redefining it completely. This is the Apple of 2011. The most innovative consumer tech outfit on the planet, with hands-down the best talent in the industry, run like a huge start-up.

It isn't inconceivable that they could pull something like this off and send the big players back to the drawing board. Over $60 billion cash on hand. Market cap fast approaching Exxon Mobil. Apple could buy Sony with their cash on hand alone (and then use what's left over to buy Dell, just so they could shut it down and . . .) Now add Apple talent to the money situation, and you've got a serious threat to the established players.

Make no mistake, Apple is a threat to *every* current non-Apple established power in consumer tech.