I can see it being another "hobby", but not a huge product. For most people, a TV lasts 5-6 years, some more. So many people get locked into the yearly Apple product cycle, but can't see it happening with this.
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.
Multiple Sources Suggest Apple Working on Television for as Early as 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting...
1. Use your billions to buy the frequencies.
2. Use the frequencies as leverage to make big content distribution deals, bypassing the ISPs.
3. Use great content (+ excellent software, of course) to entice customers to buy the devices that can deliver the content.
(this is a US-centric plan but maybe it could be repeated in other areas as well with some variation.)
That makes some sense. Content producers are largely under them thumb of the cable companies in the US (which are also major ISPs) and would probably love to get out. Apple would need to give them a favorable deal compared to the cable cos, but that's not hard to do.
Enticing customers to buy is something Apple is pretty good at in general. Access to unique content packages could make this possible. I still think most will not buy a TV they don't see lasting for at least 10 years. Not sure how Apple would deal with that. Separation of display and "smart module" (set-top box)? Make it so enticing that people wont care after all?
Could it work?
I love this rumor. I thought about it for a bit since I first heard of it.
1. The average person replaces their computer every 2 to 6 years. That may be about the same with TV's.
2. Apple brand recognition is probably about Sony and Samsung. As far as brand recognition in the TV landscape goes, since people buy TV's so infrequently they are either going to look for brands that they recognize or take advice from someone else.
3. If the product has the traditional Apple quality it will be a serious contender on the shelf. Add in some buzz and media reports and it may be the top consideration.
4. Apple loves profit, and the device will most likely be more than traditional TV's, but I doubt it will be much more. What, 30% premium? That means a $1000 samsung costs $1300 for an Apple one. This sounds similar to the Mac/PC cost ratio.
5. Not everyone is going to get it right away. You don't have to have people buying them at the rate of iPods or iPhones, Apple just need to be consistently moving them. Since it would probably run some flavor of OSX new features that build value for the "2nd generation Apple TV" could be added to older models to give you more reason to replace your second TV when it goes with another Apple TV. (I would be curious what the average number of TV's in a home is. I have a 2 bedroom apartment for me and my GF and we have one in the living room and one in the master bedroom. She wants a third for our gym. Chances are I would get an Apple TV for the living room and move then rest to their proper places. When the oldest dies I might buy another Apple TV - if it made sense.)
I can see the hardware portion of the market being penetrable, but at this point it relies of Apple's thinking different to stand out. Simply having iPhone, iPad, Mac integration isn't enough.
1. Improved display of some sort. Not just resolution or viewing angle.
2. Greener technology.
3. App Market. - This seems given since the AppEcosystem ties you into the platform and provides a solid revenue stream.
4. Avoiding the cable companies. - This could be good, could be bad. The issue of course is that once you start messing with content distribution you have a lot of people you need to play with. Apple is aware of the difficulties and it may be worth letting someone else deal with it.
A) They could let networks and content distributers and producers become "app developers". Apple controls the GUI of how users interact with "channels" and the above people decide what they charge - just like app developers.
B) Say the average channel is $1 to $10 a month customers could subscribe to the networks they prefer. (ESPN $5, NBC $1, HBO $10)
5. Offer end users the option to subscribe to shows they prefer. Two option - DVR with an expiration date or expiration number of views. Or, instead of a DVR that records the broadcast (including ads and weather disruptions) you would get a copy similar to what iTunes now options.
6. All digital distribution would give networks a lot more feedback about who, how often and what consumers are watching. Less need for the Neilsons.
7. Sports issues could be avoided in the short term by letting you subscribe to broadcast feeds of networks. Future deals with the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL could have more favorable terms to get them selling directly to their fans.
8. Pay-Per-View integrates right with downloading movies, except that it is live content such as NASCAR, UFC, WWF, etc..
9. Apple has already proven that if the quality is there and it is easy enough, people will pay for things they could get for free.
10. Let people move the content from their TV to their Mac, iPad, iPhone or iPod with ease via iCloud.
11. A universal AppMarket that allows easy interaction between the iPad, iPod and iPhone.
12. Safari would seem to need to be on it, but without a keyboard it might be frustrating to use. I could see Apple linking it with an iPad or iPhone.
So yeah, I can see them running away in the hardware market despite the cost, hardware replacement frequency and competitiveness already existent. I see them competing directly with cable and over the air broadcasts by forcing the content distributers and the content produces to work together. The only thing that would hold back adoption is if the first generation simply didn't sell. The larger the product stays on the market the more bargaining power apple would have when renegotiating contracts.
Ultimately, it's that last point that keeps me unsure if the big players are willing to give Apple a chance.
I love this rumor. I thought about it for a bit since I first heard of it.
1. The average person replaces their computer every 2 to 6 years. That may be about the same with TV's.
2. Apple brand recognition is probably about Sony and Samsung. As far as brand recognition in the TV landscape goes, since people buy TV's so infrequently they are either going to look for brands that they recognize or take advice from someone else.
3. If the product has the traditional Apple quality it will be a serious contender on the shelf. Add in some buzz and media reports and it may be the top consideration.
4. Apple loves profit, and the device will most likely be more than traditional TV's, but I doubt it will be much more. What, 30% premium? That means a $1000 samsung costs $1300 for an Apple one. This sounds similar to the Mac/PC cost ratio.
5. Not everyone is going to get it right away. You don't have to have people buying them at the rate of iPods or iPhones, Apple just need to be consistently moving them. Since it would probably run some flavor of OSX new features that build value for the "2nd generation Apple TV" could be added to older models to give you more reason to replace your second TV when it goes with another Apple TV. (I would be curious what the average number of TV's in a home is. I have a 2 bedroom apartment for me and my GF and we have one in the living room and one in the master bedroom. She wants a third for our gym. Chances are I would get an Apple TV for the living room and move then rest to their proper places. When the oldest dies I might buy another Apple TV - if it made sense.)
I can see the hardware portion of the market being penetrable, but at this point it relies of Apple's thinking different to stand out. Simply having iPhone, iPad, Mac integration isn't enough.
1. Improved display of some sort. Not just resolution or viewing angle.
2. Greener technology.
3. App Market. - This seems given since the AppEcosystem ties you into the platform and provides a solid revenue stream.
4. Avoiding the cable companies. - This could be good, could be bad. The issue of course is that once you start messing with content distribution you have a lot of people you need to play with. Apple is aware of the difficulties and it may be worth letting someone else deal with it.
A) They could let networks and content distributers and producers become "app developers". Apple controls the GUI of how users interact with "channels" and the above people decide what they charge - just like app developers.
B) Say the average channel is $1 to $10 a month customers could subscribe to the networks they prefer. (ESPN $5, NBC $1, HBO $10)
5. Offer end users the option to subscribe to shows they prefer. Two option - DVR with an expiration date or expiration number of views. Or, instead of a DVR that records the broadcast (including ads and weather disruptions) you would get a copy similar to what iTunes now options.
6. All digital distribution would give networks a lot more feedback about who, how often and what consumers are watching. Less need for the Neilsons.
7. Sports issues could be avoided in the short term by letting you subscribe to broadcast feeds of networks. Future deals with the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL could have more favorable terms to get them selling directly to their fans.
8. Pay-Per-View integrates right with downloading movies, except that it is live content such as NASCAR, UFC, WWF, etc..
9. Apple has already proven that if the quality is there and it is easy enough, people will pay for things they could get for free.
10. Let people move the content from their TV to their Mac, iPad, iPhone or iPod with ease via iCloud.
11. A universal AppMarket that allows easy interaction between the iPad, iPod and iPhone.
12. Safari would seem to need to be on it, but without a keyboard it might be frustrating to use. I could see Apple linking it with an iPad or iPhone.
So yeah, I can see them running away in the hardware market despite the cost, hardware replacement frequency and competitiveness already existent. I see them competing directly with cable and over the air broadcasts by forcing the content distributers and the content produces to work together. The only thing that would hold back adoption is if the first generation simply didn't sell. The larger the product stays on the market the more bargaining power apple would have when renegotiating contracts.
Ultimately, it's that last point that keeps me unsure if the big players are willing to give Apple a chance.
Last edited:
That is correct! I have been told by a high-level Broadcast Network executive, that the technology is here*, but the politics is not.
* to bring content delivery (TV?) into the 21st century.
Beyond, the bandwidth, Apple could gain negotiating leverage by creating or obtaining exclusive rights to certain, high-demand content.
Here is one example of the kind of content that gives negotiating leverage:
NBC Wins the U.S. Television Rights to Olympic Games Through 2020
Comcast/NBC gets a decade worth of Winter and summer Olympics for $4.38 Billion...
Now, I as a ATT uverse subscriber will be able to watch this content, because ATT and Comcast will reach a deal to rebroadcast each other's content.
...'Course Comcast, with a market cap of $42.88 Billion could be purchased for...
My point is that there are ways for Apple to get access to the content, and the signal that comes out of the coax cable into the house..
That accomplished, Apple could negotiate rights to stream to iPads and HD displays, alike,
It seems to me a lot of people here would upgrade if Apple announced they added 1 pixel to their retina displays and are calling it the super retina display.
Unless they plan on going full force and offer SEVERAL sizes - it would be a mistake. And downgrade this post all you want - but I think it would be better if Apple opened up their platform and instead integrated Apple TV into partners like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba rather than enter this particular market as a manufacturer.
Sure they have the money and could do it. I just don't think that's where they should go with it...
Sure they have the money and could do it. I just don't think that's where they should go with it...
wouldnt a 4k 46" quality display have to sell for quite a lot more than 2k? i know you have silly cheap electronics in the states, but that sounds... too cheap... :- )
This would be interesting.
Perhaps Partner with them in delivering content without out limits or at least offer unlimited at a reasonable price.
Seriously? 32" TVs that have netflix, hulu plus, vudu, amazon, Facebook, amazon, etc. built in are around $500. I'll take the cheapo and a $99 external AppleTV thank you.
They have kinda screwed up by dropping the AppleTV price. They have now set a price for the Apple premium. Anything more than $99 above a competing TV of the same specs, is obviously a ripoff.
There are always ways, just think it will be anything but an easy one. Sure, if they decided to team up with just one partner (or so) it would make things much easier. But when you want to become the main hub for everything, well.. like shown in the example above the networks pay tons for exclusivity :- )
It would, however, be truly great to get rid of all the crap. I dont ever care if i cant buy things on a show-to-show basis. Just being able to pick which channels i want (and perhaps even when) would do me plenty good. Right now its just awful.
Good thing internet, and on demand streaming has started to take off at last. At least with that we are one step closer.
No Apple can build them for less cost because they will skip the antiglare screen treatment and call them "glossy".
What's innovative about an IPS TV ? You do realise TVs don't use TN panels right because then you'd have to sit directly in front of them to not have color distortion. Either it's PVA or IPS in LCD TVs already.
I don't, necessarily, believe that Apple needs to bypass the ISPs nor lure content away from them. Rather, they must have enough leverage to negotiate with the existing players -- "I'll let you use this, if you'll let me use that".
I suspect, what would satisfy Apple's needs is: regardless of ISP or content owner, AppleTV gets access to the signals and content coming into the house. You would still have your CableCo subscription and maybe even the CableCo STB (though not needed).
I think an Apple TV is inevitable. I think their goal will be a whole new way of getting content, and getting away from the set-top-box... because that is what Steve said the challenge is. If they can do this well then they will be differentiating themselves from the conventional TV, and starting to make people look at how content should be delivered in a different way. Then other companies will try to catch up (if it is different and sells).
It would be great to have a 50" + TV on the wall with no boxes, much cleaner, very Apple. How about a magic trackpad like remote with a few dedicated buttons, like home and volume, or better yet, gestures for volume. Some people would like apps on their TV (not me) and I could see this being a way to control the whole home content and internet experience. Then your digital life would 'just work' because you could have an entire Apple eco-system (which you can have now with an Apple TV). How about an Air Play like system that wirelessly uses the TV as a monitor for a Macbook Air, that would be sweet.
Maybe Apple is just playing with the idea behind closed doors and still needs to figure out how to justify their high price tag. Once they justify this it is just a matter of time till one is announced.
It would be great to have a 50" + TV on the wall with no boxes, much cleaner, very Apple. How about a magic trackpad like remote with a few dedicated buttons, like home and volume, or better yet, gestures for volume. Some people would like apps on their TV (not me) and I could see this being a way to control the whole home content and internet experience. Then your digital life would 'just work' because you could have an entire Apple eco-system (which you can have now with an Apple TV). How about an Air Play like system that wirelessly uses the TV as a monitor for a Macbook Air, that would be sweet.
Maybe Apple is just playing with the idea behind closed doors and still needs to figure out how to justify their high price tag. Once they justify this it is just a matter of time till one is announced.
Fixed that there for you.
Android has been on TVs for a year already, with apps announced and a further commitment to the platform already confirmed even though initial hurdles with big TV content providers : http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/27/google-remains-committed-to-tv-business-expects-more-partners-s/
Apps can now be made :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20095701-264/android-developers-can-start-writing-google-tv-apps/
http://code.google.com/tv/
And Sony still is pushing the hardware :
http://discover.store.sony.com/internettv/#/home
Wow, Apple hasn't even entered the market and already we're getting this rewriting of history that we have to correct...
Yes! I agree.
The demand streaming, while a good start, can only go so far -- those very same ISPs control the faucet on the pipe.
Computer displays are more expensive
Computer displays by design are more expensive because of the pixel density. TVs are typically around 1920 x 1080 for TVs that are 46" where as the 27" Apple display is 2560 x 1440 (Ultra HD). So your point on pricing doesn't make sense unless Apple makes a 50" display with ultra high resolution.
Computer displays by design are more expensive because of the pixel density. TVs are typically around 1920 x 1080 for TVs that are 46" where as the 27" Apple display is 2560 x 1440 (Ultra HD). So your point on pricing doesn't make sense unless Apple makes a 50" display with ultra high resolution.
Most 1080p TVs are already Retina displays. 300+ PPI ? You don't sit 12 inches away from a TV. 50 PPI is sufficient for the retina effect.
I suspect 300+ dpi isn't required for 'retina level' viewing when you're sat 6 feet away from the screen, unlike typical iPhone and iPad usage.
1. was a long time since i saw a figure, but it was more like 5-10 back then. maybe even more.
3. assuming they can keep prices down, which... well, is hard (samsung seems to be the one doing best atm). sure, they will do the "added value" routine, but still.
4. except that you'll have regular promos on the other ones, including free BR-players etc. etc. We see them even in top-of-the-line models, which i guess Apple want to compete with.
---
1. Well, besides picture and audio quality you really dont have much to go for when it comes to making a tv (And we all know that no one really cares about the audio).
2. people arent willing to pay that much for green though. and, i doubt they will magically come up with some new screen tech that takes us years into the future. after all we have both full-led (not edge-lit) and oled, isnt that green enough all things considering?
--
Also: As long as Apple refuses to join DLNA people are gonna be skeptic. Heck, imagine all the people who already have their system going. What are they gonna do if they buy an Apple TV? Throw everything out?
Cant say that im sure, but i would expect people shopping in the premium segment care about these things, and have substantial investments already that they dont want to see go up in smoke just like that.
----------
Give them what they want, just dont tell them what it would cost to buy. = )
That does seem like a problem. While I might be interested in some Apple television set, I'm not going to run out and get one because my 4 year old Pioneer plasma still looks fantastic. These big screen tvs are just too expensive to swap out on a whim.