Should Apple make a television?

[Rogifan]

The Verge is reporting that Amazon entered into a deal with Best Buy where Best Buy will sell smart TVs that run Amazon’s FireTV software. I recently bought a 4K smart TV that has Roku integration and I’ve hardly used my Apple TV since. I used to think an Apple television was a silly idea but I don’t anymore. Not when most new TVs come with Google, Amazon or Roku software. Why spend an additional $199 for a box when the Roku Netflix app is basically the same and just one tap away on my remote? Heck Apple could even partner with Best Buy, Frys or other retailers to sell the TVs in store. I know people say TVs are low margin and not replaced often (opposite of an iPhone) but I fear Apple is ceding too much ground to other players in this space.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...st-buy-fire-tv-edition-smart-deal-partnership

 

[Juicy Box]

Why spend an additional $199 for a box when the Roku Netflix app is basically the same and just one tap away on my remote

I can think of a bunch of reasons.

You can take an ATV with you when you travel, hook it up to TVs in hotel rooms.

When a new ATV comes out and has features/power that the old one didn't, you can only spend <$200 to get it, I doubt that an Apple Television will be a low priced device to just easily upgrade.

Also, when getting a new ATV, you could move the old one to a less used TV.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I dunno, I don't think it's worth it. We have a smart TV, but it's such a mixed bag. In some ways, it's very convenient, in others, not so much. Because there are so many competing services for the living room, there's no single solution that actually works well, at least none that I have found. Our TV does Amazon Prime Video, but it won't do Prime Music. It also doesn't do YouTube very well, and there are no apps for things like PGAtourlive or MLB.tv. As soon as Apple expanded the TV's functionality, Amazon pulled support for awhile. No matter how you slice it, you seem to be left with a SmartTV that can do some of what you want, but you also need an external box to handle the services it lacks. I'd rather pay a reasonable price for a nice "TV," and find other ways to play the extra content. A cheap PC in the living room isn't such a bad idea.

I personally want to distance myself more from Amazon, because soon there won't be anything else left.

 

[nnoble]

Until this thread appeared I thought TVs were history. I’ve not had one for, almost, a couple of decades

 

[oneMadRssn]

I don't think Apple will make a whole TV for the same reason Apple doesn't make a standalone monitor anymore - there is very little value Apple can add to what other competitors already make and there is no room for the Apple tax in that market. Other than taking a Samsung/LG panel, putting into an Apple-designed enclosure and integrating an AppleTV and Siri Remote, what can Apple really offer? They can't even make a compelling case for a smart speaker today - a TV would be a sure flop. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple hardware and I love my AppleTV. I just don't see much value Apple can add to an already crowded, competitive, and well-developed market like TVs.

 

[Rogifan]

I can think of a bunch of reasons.

You can take an ATV with you when you travel, hook it up to TVs in hotel rooms.

When a new ATV comes out and has features/power that the old one didn't, you can only spend <$200 to get it, I doubt that an Apple Television will be a low priced device to just easily upgrade.

Also, when getting a new ATV, you could move the old one to a less used TV.

What features would require a new box? I’ve got to believe the most used apps on Apple TV are streaming content apps like Netflix, Hulu etc. What do those apps require besides a high speed internet connection and maybe a 4K TV?

 

[Juicy Box]

I just wished there was more dumb TVs out there, as I'd rather use an external box.

In a similar Apple Telelvision thread a few months ago, I shared an article about how TV manufacturing companies were contemplating dropping the Smart TVs and going back to dumb TVs only. This was due to the high costs of supporting the Smart OSs. The profit margins are already really small for TVs, and ROI of the R&D and support was not worth it.

The article basically said that it probably won't happen in the short term, but Smart TVs might not be worth it to the manufacturers in the long term.

 

[Rogifan]

I don't think Apple will make a whole TV for the same reason Apple doesn't make a standalone monitor anymore - there is very little value Apple can add to what other competitors already make and there is no room for the Apple tax in that market. Other than taking a Samsung/LG panel, putting into an Apple-designed enclosure and integrating an AppleTV and Siri Remote, what can Apple really offer? They can't even make a compelling case for a smart speaker today - a TV would be a sure flop. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple hardware and I love my AppleTV. I just don't see much value Apple can add to an already crowded, competitive, and well-developed market like TVs.

The improvement would be the TV software/UI. And Apple is making a stand alone monitor again. Most likely will be announced when the new Mac Pro is. I suppose Apple could partner with an existing TV maker to integrate tvOS but it’s rare for Apple to run its software on someone else’s hardware. Like I said my concern is the more TVs people buy with Google/Amazon/Roku software the less likely they are to feel the need to purchase an Apple TV. Only having to deal with one input, one remote is a big selling feature.

 

[Juicy Box]

What features would require a new box? I’ve got to believe the most used apps on Apple TV are streaming content apps like Netflix, Hulu etc. What do those apps require besides a high speed internet connection and maybe a 4K TV?

Games requiring a more powerful device. It potentially other stuff too.

How often is a TV replaced? I am not sure about other people, but I would expect a minimum of 5 years, if not more. Compare the differences between the ATV3 and the ATV4, which was only a few years apart.

If Apple released a Television only a few years ago based off of the hardware that's was on the ATV3 at the time, that TV would have been obsolete in a few short years later.

Yes, things like Netfix and Hulu would be fine for a while, but stuff like games that could benefit from new hardware would suffer.

 

[AtomicGrog]

Considering that they no longer produce their own monitor, which is arguably a smart tv without the smart, why would they?

I'm for keeping display and application separate, it's one of my first principles as a Solution Architect (separation of Presentation, Application and Storage tiers). Facilitates re-use (display can connect to multiple applications), agile replacement (the key being the interface, or in this case the cable/protocol standards) and consolidation (one display multiple inputs).

I have a vision... for personal compute capability the processing will morph from laptop to phone to watch to 'bio-embedded', can (network) attach to input and output capabilities, scaled to needs i.e. on the move a phone size display/input, low power mode. When operating in the table space, larger display, more cpu via better power access, full display, power/cpu when rendering to desktop... all this relies on separation of processing power and presentation.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

What features would require a new box?

HDMI 2.1 and rec.2020. These things would make me upgrade.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I just wished there was more dumb TVs out there, as I'd rather use an external box.

In a similar Apple Telelvision thread a few months ago, I shared an article about how TV manufacturing companies were contemplating dropping the Smart TVs and going back to dumb TVs only. This was due to the high costs of supporting the Smart OSs. The profit margins are already really small for TVs, and ROI of the R&D and support was not worth it.

The article basically said that it probably won't happen in the short term, but Smart TVs might not be worth it to the manufacturers in the long term.

I agree. Out first SmartTV barely saw any updates to the OS or the Apps. Something eventually went wrong with the OS itself, and the TV would often not power on unless you unplugged it. The basic TV functionality worked well. We got a UHD SmartTV a couple years ago for a great deal, and it has done better with updates, but the sleep mode is also unreliable, so I turned it off. I would be fine without the smart functions, especially if I could save $100 off the price of the set.

 

[Juicy Box]

Out first SmartTV barely saw any updates to the OS or the Apps.

This was my experience as well with Smart TVs.

I think this has to do with the cost of support being too high for TV manufactures to return a profit. At a certain point, the support costs would eat all of their already thin profit margins.

I am sure if Apple did make a television, that they would probably be more consistent with the updates. I just don't think Apple will make one due to the thin margins.

Something eventually went wrong with the OS itself, and the TV would often not power on unless you unplugged it. The basic TV functionality worked well. We got a UHD SmartTV a couple years ago for a great deal, and it has done better with updates, but the sleep mode is also unreliable, so I turned it off. I would be fine without the smart functions, especially if I could save $100 off the price of the set.

I agree. The problem is that now, it is hard to find TVs that are not smart. Although, this might change in the next few years.

 

[thisismyusername]

All an Apple branded TV would be is an overpriced Samsung TV with an AppleTV inside it. Why bother?

Smart TVs in general are a pretty dumb idea because the display will almost always outlast the smarts. I’d much rather buy a dumb TV and a separate AppleTV/Roku/etc because chances are I’m going to want to replace the latter in a couple of years but keep the display. Heck, I don’t even like that virtually every TV comes with integrated speakers (I’d much rather use my own receiver/speakers).

My perfect TV would be a completely dumb and mute display that has a picture quality that can rival the best OLEDs and whatnot. I don’t want integrated speakers, smarts, tuner, etc.

Too bad dumb TVs don’t really exist.

 

[Juicy Box]

All an Apple branded TV would be is an overpriced Samsung TV with an AppleTV inside it. Why bother?

This is true, I could only wonder what Apple would charge.

My perfect TV would be a completely dumb and mute display that has a picture quality that can rival the best OLEDs and whatnot. I don’t want integrated speakers, smarts, tuner, etc.

Too bad dumb TVs don’t really exist.

They actually do exist, just not too many larger sized ones.

By definition, a Television is a monitor with a tuner. Remove the tuner, then it is just a monitor.

There are plenty of smaller of monitors that fit a lot of what you are looking for, but trying to find one at a larger size is where the problem is.

I guess the reason is that there is not really a demand for a very large computer monitor.

 

[Joe h]

Make them a fully functioning iPads, with a touch screen plus wiimote like controller, in sizes 32, 43, 50, and 70 inches. Aim for $900 for the 32, to $2000 for the 70.

 

[Juicy Box]

Aim for $900 for the 32, to $2000 for the 70.

With the iPad Pro prices where they are at, I really think that it is wishful thinking that Apple would release a 70" touchscreen TV for $2000.

Just to compare, I think the Thunderbolt display was $900, and it was only 27" and not touch screen.

But, I guess anything is possible.

 

[oneMadRssn]

The improvement would be the TV software/UI. And Apple is making a stand alone monitor again. Most likely will be announced when the new Mac Pro is. I suppose Apple could partner with an existing TV maker to integrate tvOS but it’s rare for Apple to run its software on someone else’s hardware. Like I said my concern is the more TVs people buy with Google/Amazon/Roku software the less likely they are to feel the need to purchase an Apple TV. Only having to deal with one input, one remote is a big selling feature.

I agree the UI is big deal, but it's not that big of a deal to add a streaming box.

I have a tv with Google built-in. I still use the AppleTV - and it's still one remote. With HDMI-CEC, the AppleTV remote turns on the TV and my receiver, and sets all the right inputs. If I use the AppleTV remote to sleep the AppleTV, my TV and receiver also turn off. Actually the arrows on my TV remote control tvOS too, if I want (but I never use that). It all works quite well. And it also basically set itself up, I didn't have to go digging in settings.

From what I have read, there is no evidence that TV buying decisions are being made based on the smart OS running on the TV. I have a few friends that work for Samsung, and they say consumers still buy TVs based primarily on price, and secondarily on technical specs such as resolution, brightness, etc. Nobody chose a Samsung over an LG because they love Tizen and hate WebOS, for example.

That Apple will made a stand alone monitor is just a rumor, and one that I don't believe really. I don't think Apple can do better than the LG displays they are currently selling. Other than color and texture matching it to the new Mac Pro or Macbook Pros, what else can they do? Those monitors are already a USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 hub docking station with all sorts of inputs.

There is just too much variation in TVs. It makes more sense to sell streaming boxes.

 

[Juicy Box]

That Apple will made a stand alone monitor is just a rumor, and one that I don't believe really.

Do you mean the Apple Television rumor? or the Apple display rumor for the new Mac Pro coming out in 2019ish?

If you mean the Apple Television rumor, that has been around for the past 14 years. The rumor pops back up every few years.

I can't remember if the rumor was in the summer of 2004 or 2005, but the original rumor was that Apple had plans to release a Plasma TV with built in OSX with Front Row support, one in 42" and one in 52".

 

[oneMadRssn]

Do you mean the Apple Television rumor? or the Apple display rumor for the new Mac Pro coming out in 2019ish?

If you mean the Apple Television rumor, that has been around for the past 14 years. The rumor pops back up every few years.

I can't remember if the rumor was in the summer of 2004 or 2005, but the original rumor was that Apple had plans to release a Plasma TV with built in OSX with Front Row support, one in 42" and one in 52".

No, I was referring to the monitor rumor. As in, computer monitor.

Yea, I've been following the Apple television rumor for a while. I'm convinced that isn't happening anytime soon, if ever.

 

[Juicy Box]

No, I was referring to the monitor rumor. As in, computer monitor.

If that is the case....

I don't think Apple can do better than the LG displays they are currently selling.

I have to disagree, basically for this reason:

Other than color and texture matching it to the new Mac Pro or Macbook Pros, what else can they do?

I think having a beautifully designed display is important to some people. The LG ones, while functional, is not as aesthetically pleasing as Apple's previous displays.

You see complaints about LGs looks in the forums all the time, especially when people are pairing them with iMacs.

For me, I would prefer functionality to aesthetics, but aesthetics don't hurt if it is still functional.
[doublepost=1524152212][/doublepost]

Yea, I've been following the Apple television rumor for a while. I'm convinced that isn't happening anytime soon, if ever.

I don't think it will either.

 

[George Dawes]

when micro led comes of age apple will make a tv

and own the market like they do with the iphone

 

[400]

Picture quality is everything for me and OLED is the tops (people will disagree, not all eyes see the same, that is life). If Apple were to buy their OLED panels and shove their processing back end on or some frankenstein deal with apple, they would have to match price or provide something stunning for me to part with loot.

And I do not want a TV that is tied to major player updates (amazon or apple), rather replace a cheap box than the whole thing.

And a box is portable, not in the sense I want to take it places, I can sell the set and just plug in the box to a new set, and that also keeps all my details to me.

 

[RichardMZhlubb]

I see two big issues. First, display technology evolves much slower than streaming technology. I have a perfectly good 10-year old plasma TV in my basement. I can't imagine that there are any TV streaming devices, even the current crop, that will still be anywhere close to then-current technology after 10 years. Second, the more technology that gets bundled into a single product, the more likely it is that something goes wrong. The power supply cable on my Thunderbolt monitor (to connect to my laptop) stopped working recently. I'm certainly not going to take the whole thing in to have that repaired, so I now have to use a separate power cord. Bundled devices may be convenient at first, but they become a much bigger issue when one small piece breaks.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I think having a beautifully designed display is important to some people. The LG ones, while functional, is not as aesthetically pleasing as Apple's previous displays.

You see complaints about LGs looks in the forums all the time, especially when people are pairing them with iMacs.

For me, I would prefer functionality to aesthetics, but aesthetics don't hurt if it is still functional.

Yea, I can see that and agree somewhat. I still think it is more likely to see LG, with some kind of formal or informal partnership with Apple, release an updated monitor that is more aesthetically matching to Apple's Mac Pro than it is for us to see an Apple-branded Cinema display. I suspect that line is dead. Like TVs, monitors have become a much more crowded and more competitive market since the last time Apple released a monitor.