Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES

[alent1234]

Yes, you wouldn't need cable in addition to the apple tv.

The advantage that this model would offer is that the networks are still able to make money because people aren't purchasing only 4-5 channels for $.99 or so. And the apple tv is more affordable because the pricing is subsidized based on the subscription fees.

i've run the numbers. once you factor in $50 for internet and $15 a month for Hulu and netflix itunes only makes sense for a few episodes here and there.

the $.99 per episode price is way too much. Roku with Amazon seems like a better deal apple tv as well. i only plan to buy a few cheap cartoons. anything more than that is going on blu ray. i refuse to buy $30 movies that are compressed and DRM locked to devices, services and ecosystems.

 

[Ryth]

Pricing is absolutley essential if this is going to be success. The current market is highly competitive. With an iPhone and iPad people they can get away with large margins as the contracts will subsidize it. However with the credit crunch going on, people are not going to be able to easily afford a £1500+ television when they can get a very good one for under £500. Therefore Apple is going to have to be extremely aggressive at launch, possibly offering 0% interest finance deals and most certainly coming in under £1000.

It is going to be a hella lot harder for Apple to break this market than any other they have entered in to thus far.

They said the same thing about the iPhone and we saw how that turned out. They don't have to offer ****** for financing. They sell $1000-$3000 Laptops all the time...the TV is going to be in the same range.

The recession/credit crunch comment has been so debunked, how can you even bring that up??? Go look at the stock and the sales numbers...Apple sales are through the roof over the last 3+ years.

Everyone said that 'oh..here comes the recession, no one is going to buy Apple products that are overpriced'...blah blah...just the opposite occurred..people are buying the best product if they are going to spend their hard earned money.

Further - the purchase lifecycle for a phone is FAR different than a TV.

People don't "upgrade" their TVs on a 1-2 year cycle....
...You can't compare Apple producing a TV against products like the iPod, iPhone, etc.

And you don't think they've taken the life cycle of a TV/buying habits into account? I think you are highly doubting the people in charge at Apple and we've seen the results of people doubting Apple...

----------

TV's are also a major purchase with a lifespan much longer than that that of a computer. I'd be pissed if I had to keep upgrading my $2000+ TV every couple years just to have the latest and greatest Apple TV product. I just paid a ton for my TV and will not be due for an upgrade for at least the next 3 - 4 years, most likely much longer.

I've had my current computer for 7 years and I do graphics. If you buy good stuff, it will last a long time.

Most people don't buy good stuff.

Apple has taken into account the life cycle of a TV...trust me.

 

[smoledman]

It will be super thin, WQHD (2560×1440), have only a power cord, Siri built-in to an iOS-modified media center that you can also control with the existing Apple Remote. You will be able to stream live and well as archived TV programs & films from all over the world. Available in 2 sizes - 42" and 50" for $1999 and $2999.

 

[liquidsuns]

Im not fully understanding the part about needing to "secure content". Does iTunes not already have almost every tv show and movie available "a la carte"? The tv shows can even be redownloaded on any device or streamed to ATV. I fully grant the fact that the pricing is a bit high all across the board, but why does anyone think that you will be able to own (or subscribe) to tv shows with NO commercials for cheaper then you can now through cable, which has commercials? What is the incentive for networks or cable companies to do that?

I see people saying they want to subscribe to all these channels for a much cheaper price and have no commercials....why do you expect this to happen? But if you want tv shows a la cart and movies to rent/own (they do really need to iCloud movie purchases), with no commercials, then guess what....itunes is the best you are gonna get for a long time.

 

[bigjohn]

first off, i have a tv in my lab. that alone doesn't mean much.

second, how will the appletv work with directv? or am I limited to streaming & itunes capabilities? i already have a roku and popcornhour - none of those remotes have me baffled.

third, how does voice control for a tv work? all you need is some character yelling "TURN THE DAMN TV OFF" and there you go, it goes off. LOL.

 

[jwdsail]

I don't get this line of thinking.

You can currently get a 50" TV for anywhere between $400 Vizio and $2000 Sony. Apple will undoubtedly use a more expensive TV with much better parts, add $200 to the cost of it for the integration of Apple TV, and charge that.

When the Apple television set for $2200 comes out, people will claim it's the same as the $400 Vizio TV with an $1800 'apple tax', when that is the furthest from the truth.

I suspect Apple will target Sony's XBR series for features and price... I'd think they'd try to get aprox $199 below the XBR price for each size they offer..

I have a 40" XBR5 (wanted the 46" XBR4 but waited too long/was out of stock) and I'm not sure if I'd buy anything that isn't a giant leap.. full color LED backlight w/ local dimming.. 4K perhaps.. The smallest size I'd even dream of replacing the 40" with is 50".. The space prob could handle up to a 55" set..

I think anyone expecting Apple to compete w/ Vizio on price is going to be very disappointed... The TV AppleTVs will be for people that buy on the high-end of TVs I think, they will keep the AppleTV box for everyone else..

 

[The Captain]

Excellent point, everyone I know as well who buys a new TV plugs their DVR in and never uses the TV's UI. This is why Apple are trying to work on aqcuiring content to push and not make "just another TV" They want people to skip the DVR. I do agree with you in that I can't see it taking off.

It just has failure written all over it doesn't it? Who is asking for this?

The DVR interface from my cable company is just fine. Not many complaints, but even if people hated theirs and the Apple one is better how are those people getting the internet connection to use the TV in the first place? Oh yea, probably through their cable provider.

So people are still going to have to pay the cable company for the internet connection, then the question is can Apple compete with cable who can bundle their internet along with their channel lineups, against Apple which doesn't? I don't think so.

It really looks like just an expensive toy. You pay a premium for a LCD that has a picture quality less than the LED's and PLasma's of the same price and on top of your cable and internet bill you can stream a few extra channels Apple has. Cool, Apple wants to be Netflix with a special TV to do it, but my TV already has Netfix so....?

 

[bbbb4b]

For crying out loud M.R.; stop calling a "rumor" a "report". The two meanings are not interchangeable.

 

[ncaissie]

I already do this with my LG 55” smart TV. The apps are slow at times but Netflix works awesome. I don’t bother with the other Apps/Games. I just got this TV and now I have a projector collecting dust as I moved my 52” Sony Bravia to my bedroom. I love having Netflix built in and I would cancel my cable package if it wasn’t for my wife and kids.
My TV has a wiimote style remote that point and click on the screen. It is also 3D. There is a 3D app that you can order pay perview style 3D content but the content sucks. My PS3 also has Netflix and movies/TV buy/rent service. Unless Apple has a wireless controller and strong processor then I wouldn’t play games on it. My LG has crapy point and click games like the Wii.

 

[live4ever]

Well, at least we won't need to put up with rumours about one going 'missing' in certain local bars...

There are always "elevators".

 

[trims]

I completely disagree with the assertion that these sets are quality. I would say the Samsung TV I own looks good for a thin black monolith. However, the software on the so-called SmartTV is atrocious. Really, the only good thing about TVs today is that they are very good at putting HDMI on the screen. So in summary, as long as you treat the SmartTV like a monitor you'll love it.

Most of the discussion so far has been about interface and content.

While these are both are important goals they could be achieved quite simply through an updated Apple TV box.

Why redesign the whole TV?

Some will say it's about (Sir) Jonathan Ive's design genius in producing a beautiful aesthetic product. Think Apple Thunderbolt display.

But a TV will be far more challenging in terms of setting a quality benchmark. The Apple displays and indeed recent LED TVs don't even come close to the legendary Pioneer plasma TVs.

In part this is due to the (expensive and power hungry) screen technology, but its also due to some amazing graphics processing. Standard definition TV looks like HDTV on these sets. Blu-ray video looks absolutely stunning.

I have a friend who owns a major Hi-Fi retail chain in the UK - he is hanging on to his 4 year old 720p Pioneer Kuro TV because the latest LCD / LEDs 'don't even come close'.

Now that's the challenge for new Apple TV . . .

 

[alent1234]

Im not fully understanding the part about needing to "secure content". Does iTunes not already have almost every tv show and movie available "a la carte"? The tv shows can even be redownloaded on any device or streamed to ATV. I fully grant the fact that the pricing is a bit high all across the board, but why does anyone think that you will be able to own (or subscribe) to tv shows with NO commercials for cheaper then you can now through cable, which has commercials? What is the incentive for networks or cable companies to do that?

I see people saying they want to subscribe to all these channels for a much cheaper price and have no commercials....why do you expect this to happen? But if you want tv shows a la cart and movies to rent/own (they do really need to iCloud movie purchases), with no commercials, then guess what....itunes is the best you are gonna get for a long time.

in a lot of cases the TV shows partly pay for sports. if we buy just the shows with no sports we shouldn't have to pay to subsidize the sports contracts

 

[Mr Bigs]

Android knock-off coming 2 months after Apple release theirs.

Especially since Google tv is already out now.

 

[samcraig]

As others have alluded to - if Apple entered the TV market - it would be driven by a software solution not hardware.

TVs, as used by most, are dumb. Meaning - they really are just a monitor with hookups via HDMI to display content.

Apple's foray into this market isn't going to be about hardware (which I am sure will be nice - but not for everyone) - it will be about figuring out how to get users to consume content effortlessly. Whether that's iTunes, iCable or whatever it winds up being.

And they can still do that without producing an actual TV. Although they can offer their solution device agnostic and ALSO produce a TV which has added functionality that's exclusive to Apple.

If the "product" is only a tv in selected sizes and one style - you can pretty much guarantee that the adoption rate will be slow going because (as I've said several times) the lifecycle of a TV purchase is much longer than portable devices.

Lock people into the ecosystem and when they ARE ready to get a new TV it's a no brainer to get one that's Apple to have a seamless experience.

 

[Skika]

It will be super thin, WQHD (2560×1440), have only a power cord, Siri built-in to an iOS-modified

Useless and horrible. Why would u want that resolution on a TV?

 

[smali]

I don't feel excited by the idea of an AppleTV at all. I have a strong feeling this TV will be a sealed off unit.

Apple will want users to pay for streaming from their own service.

Apple makes no money if you:
watch blu-ray/dvd disks
ripped/recorded stuff on a harddrive/pvr
games bought for xbox/ps3/wii (remember they have their own app stores)
use alternative (unapproved by Apple) streaming sites
simply watch free broadcast TV through your normal box/satellite like BBC1

How many will want a TV that only works with Apple's own service? Even less than those who bought an tv2 since that useless little box only sold since it was sort of cheap.

 

[RWinOR]

Digital Fragrance Broadcast/Receive

What makes the Apple TV so great, is it will be the first electronics box that can receive broadcast of digital fragrances.

Imagine we now have 3D, 7 Channel audio, and soon smellavision.

Now that will change everything. (Again)

 

[samcraig]

How many will want a TV that only works with Apple's own service? Even less than those who bought an tv2 since that useless little box only sold since it was sort of cheap.

I don't think the Apple TV2 is useless. But perhaps it's my use case. To make a TON of space in my NYC apartment - I ripped my DVD collection (about 900 dvds) and they now reside on a hard drive (and backed up!). I can now watch any of those movies and not have to a) search for them and b) store them physically.

Now the only physical video media I have are my blu-rays. Much more manageable.

 

[smali]

I don't think the Apple TV2 is useless. But perhaps it's my use case. To make a TON of space in my NYC apartment - I ripped my DVD collection (about 900 dvds) and they now reside on a hard drive (and backed up!). I can now watch any of those movies and not have to a) search for them and b) store them physically.

Now the only physical video media I have are my blu-rays. Much more manageable.

I've done the same thing with my collection, except its on a hard drive just connected to the usb input on my cheap Samsung TV, no apple box required.

 

[trims]

As others have alluded to - if Apple entered the TV market - it would be driven by a software solution not hardware.

TVs, as used by most, are dumb. Meaning - they really are just a monitor with hookups via HDMI to display content.

Apple's foray into this market isn't going to be about hardware (which I am sure will be nice - but not for everyone) - it will be about figuring out how to get users to consume content effortlessly. Whether that's iTunes, iCable or whatever it winds up being.

See above. High end TVs are not dumb at all. That is the point. The very best, like the Pioneer Kuro TVs, have image processing software that turns SD TV into a cinema experience. When I first saw it I was blown away. To learn more explore this site:

http://www.avforums.com/

I think Apple will have a real challenge to come close to producing anything like the TV picture I get on my Pioneer TV.

 

[KnightWRX]

Again, no clear indication of why Apple would want to get into the selling of "Monitors" rather than just "Brains". There has to be a feature that requires Apple to sell the display portion of a TV, otherwise, why leave out a whole market segment for things like Siri and iTunes content ?

Or are they going to do both, the 99$ set top box and the 1k$ TVs ?

So many questions, so little meat.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I don't feel excited by the idea of an AppleTV at all. I have a strong feeling this TV will be a sealed off unit.

Apple will want users to pay for streaming from their own service.

Apple makes no money if you:
watch blu-ray/dvd disks
ripped/recorded stuff on a harddrive/pvr
games bought for xbox/ps3/wii (remember they have their own app stores)
use alternative (unapproved by Apple) streaming sites
simply watch free broadcast TV through your normal box/satellite like BBC1

How many will want a TV that only works with Apple's own service? Even less than those who bought an tv2 since that useless little box only sold since it was sort of cheap.

You read like those whining about the limited ability of the iPod, iPhone and iPad. You're 0-3.

 

[heisetax]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

I don't get why Microsoft is listed as one of the companies feeling threatened by this move. They're not in the home electronics/TV market. Is it just that they want Apple to fail? Do they feel this somehow threatens their share in the PC marketplace? I can see how the iPad is a threat to PCs, but who will replace a computer with a TV?

The same people that have accepted 16:9 ratio screens as more the standard for computers now rather than the more useful 16:10 screens.

 

[Ryth]

It just has failure written all over it doesn't it? Who is asking for this?

People said the same thing about the iPad and iPhone...who's asking for this? No one is.

Apple is good at creating stuff you don't know you need and want. It's their specialty.

 

[samcraig]

I've done the same thing with my collection, except its on a hard drive just connected to the usb input on my cheap Samsung TV, no apple box required.

I have a Samsung. I prefer Apple's interface to Samsungs. Much easier to navigate. But that's my experience.

See above. High end TVs are not dumb at all. That is the point. The very best, like the Pioneer Kuro TVs, have image processing software that turns SD TV into a cinema experience. When I first saw it I was blown away. To learn more explore this site:

http://www.avforums.com/

I think Apple will have a real challenge to come close to producing anything like the TV picture I get on my Pioneer TV.

That's not really what I meant. I meant that most people set up their TVs and that's it. Very few revisit functions and/or use TV apps, etc. For the most part - people use their TV to display content. OF COURSE TVs vary in the ability to display that content. That wasn't what I meant though.