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.
Should Apple make a television?
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So?
What happens when the AppleTV component fails? How do you replace it? Throw away the TV and buy a new one? What happens if the host TV firmware bricks the AppleTV?
What if they no longer feel the need to support the TV with updates? What true advantage is there to having built-in functionality? If anything, I'd love to see dumb TVs with "AppleTV ready" capability, where they have a cradle, HDMI and power cable for it.
What component is going to fail? I’m talking about a TV that’s primarily used to stream content. What sophisticated ever changing hardware (or software) do you need for that?
I have little use for smart TV's and am very happy using an Apple TV as a separate box. I have three dumb TV's with ATV's hooked up to them. My parents have a couple of smart TV's and the apps on them are all awful, wonky and difficult to use well.
If Apple were to make a TV with a tvOS integration it would probably be super expensive just so that they could make some kind of ROI with it.
If Apple were to make a TV with a tvOS integration it would probably be super expensive just so that they could make some kind of ROI with it.
My TV’s get replaced when they completely die. On average 20+ years.
To that point, I’ve purchased 2 new televisions in the last 5 years. But that was to add to additional guest room areas. Not to replace any prior televisions.
I pushed my old tube televisions to their death. Extending their lives as far as possible with digital converter boxes when the broadcast signal changed. And then with the occasional smack to the side to keep them working (who knows what that does, but something shifts and causes them to work again). Sometimes a smack on the left, sometimes on the right. Sometimes the left then the right. And if that didn’t fix it, usually a swift kick to its face did.
I really miss old technology. Can’t fix any of the new stuff by beating it anymore.
Anyway, if I purchased a new TV today with integrated Apple TV, I can guarantee you that I will not replace it until it ceases to function. And I can also guarantee you that in 20 years, the current Apple TV function of said TV will be useless (most likely within 5 to 8 years). Meaning that feature will be unused and replaced by an external box.
So... why pay Apple’s premium price for a TV that will essentially lack that feature before I’m done with it? I’m not paying extra for features that disappear on my television.
That’d be like the TV comes with a cable connection that in 5 years will self dissolve. Then I got this screen that is missing the reason I paid extra for it. Doesn’t make sense. A television should simply receive airwaves and display them, with connections to attach whatever I might want. Anything more is a waste of money to invest in.
Now, if Apple would guarantee that current Apple TV implementations will work forever with everything to the exact level that they do now, that might be different. But... connect the very first AppleTV to the current iTunes software and to the current iTunes Store for streaming. See how well that works. Then we have an idea of how useful an overpriced television would be with AppleTV integration.
From the flip side... unless I move, I now have a television in every guest area of my home. With the exception of a guest house that I’m renovating. So... if I could no longer get an external box to add to my televisions, and could only get AppleTV by buying a new Television... then that means Apple is automatically going to be waiting 20+ years before I’d be a potential customer. Because I certainly am never buying a new television just for features. Won’t happen.
The same applies to any other such company out there. I’m not buying a new screen to get access. I might buy a new cheap external box to plug into an existing screen though.
This is the same reason I’m not an iMac buyer. I don’t dispose of useful functioning devices to upgrade something else. I will keep using a keyboard, mouse, and screen. So the iMac to me is a waste. Why should I buy a screen that is useless if the computer were to die? But I also find the current mini and pro to be literal jokes at their current price and specs. So Apple hasn’t gotten money from me in a while. So why should they hinder themselves in the same way with televisions??? Aside from the fact that it’s Apple, and they’d cut off both of their legs if it meant a short sighted goal of cash could flow in, even if it lacked long term sustainability.
What benefit would an Apple Television offer over a stand-alone TV with an ATV attached?
First off, pricing would need to be considered. A high-end TV goes for $2500+ in the 55” range. With Apple tax, we’d probably be looking at least a $3000 price tag for a 55” Apple Television. After new models launch in the Spring, the prices generally drop steadily throughout the year. I bought my Sony 900E a year ago and they can now be had for half of what I paid. As we all know, Apple doesn’t change pricing on their products. By the time Fall/Winter rolls around, Apple will be asking people to spend more than double what they could with the competition’s offering plus an ATV.
Also, an Apple Television is actually a worse option for those with stand-alone audio setups with receivers. Now instead of plugging my ATV directly into the receiver for sound, I have to rely on notoriously finicky ARC. I would also now have to change inputs on my TV and my receiver, actually making things more complicated for me. With a stand-alone ATV I can plug everything into the receiver and just use that for all of my device and input switching.
Apple can charge a lot for their products because they usually offer something that the competition doesn’t, in an elegant, easy-to-use package as well. But with a stand-alone ATV available, I can get the exact same experience (arguably better really) as an Apple Television for cheaper. As it stands, Apple launches a new ATV every 2-3 years and most people keep their TV’s for much longer than that; I’d hazard a guess at roughly double that time frame. Who’s going to want to drop $3k+ on a new TV every two to three years when they could buy a TV without Apple tax and replace a stand-alone box for $200 every two years.
Simply put, it’s hard to see a way for Apple to get the kind of margins they like their products to have and to create an experience sufficiently better than a third-party television attached to an ATV that make people want to buy an Apple Television instead.
When Apple updates Apple TV but you can’t update your TV built in! This is reason why I don’t like built in stuff because I want a dumb screen and I could add any combination of boxes I want!
tvs are so cheap now , they really are disposable
i just bought a 40 inch sony for 300 quid and the pq is exc , when it goes wrong in a few years big deal , just buy another one
i can see apple making an itv soon
i just bought a 40 inch sony for 300 quid and the pq is exc , when it goes wrong in a few years big deal , just buy another one
i can see apple making an itv soon
Why do you think that Apple will do this?
[doublepost=1524591248][/doublepost]
Good point. If Apple made Apple Televisions instead of Apple TVs a few years ago, many people that bought one would be stuck with the equivalent of the ATV3 on their TV that would only be a few years old before it would be replaced with the equivalent of the ATV4 and tvOS.
Although, I think that the ATV3 was better than the ATV4 in many ways.
it's a 1080p sony
don't need or want 4k
300+ reviews on sony / john lewis - average 4.5 stars
hardly junk
reduced from 500 quid on a sale , for it's use it's fine
i know a good tv when i see it thx ,
in my main room have had bang olufsen tv's for the last 20 years avant32dvd , bv 11 etc
not exactly crap
tv in question is a 40we663
google the user reviews
at least it ain't a samsung , lol
[doublepost=1524597666][/doublepost]back on topic , tv's are basically disposable and i see no reason why apple shouldn't bring one out soon-ish
i know a good tv when i see it thx ,
in my main room have had bang olufsen tv's for the last 20 years avant32dvd , bv 11 etc
not exactly crap
tv in question is a 40we663
google the user reviews
at least it ain't a samsung , lol
[doublepost=1524597666][/doublepost]back on topic , tv's are basically disposable and i see no reason why apple shouldn't bring one out soon-ish
Junk may be a little strong, but there is absolutely nothing compelling about the TV. To me that's junk in 2018, but to each their own when using subjective terms. I also don't really give a lot of credence to a bunch of J6P reviews, who's authors have no idea what to look for when it comes to what makes a good TV.
If you want some more objective points: the TV has no HDR, uses an outdated 8-bit panel, only has a 60 Hz refresh rate, and doesn't have any kind of local dimming. You're right, 4K isn't that much of a benefit in most situations, but the TV's lack of even that just helps demonstrate that it's literally bottom of the barrel when it comes to features.
Finally, let me bring this back around to the topic of ATV. If you think Apple is going to sell Apple Televisions for anything close to $300, you obviously don't know Apple. Multiply that figure by at least 10 for a 55" model.
Last edited:
the old apple that reached for the best product is long gone - rip sj
the new apple reaches for the biggest 'in the case of atv long term' profit
i'm pretty sure rogifan and i will be proven right
the new apple reaches for the biggest 'in the case of atv long term' profit
i'm pretty sure rogifan and i will be proven right
And Apple will reach the biggest profits by selling TV's for $300? In an industry that has notoriously slim profit margins? They sell a phone for $1000.
Last edited:
pppffffftttt!!
A 70 "
TV will not go for less tan $10 000. The cheapest 70"+ OLED tvs are like in the 12k-25k Price range, now add the tax and you'll get insane prices.Low-end, 1080p TVs are cheap and disposable. Anybody who cares even a little about picture quality is not buying such TVs for their main viewing area. They're also buying sizes much larger than 40". The price jumps dramatically once you start wanting things like 4K, HDR, OLED, 65", etc.... and those things can result in a massive difference in picture quality. You might not care about those things but lots of folks do.
There's no way Apple would target such a low-end market where margins are razor thin. They'd be targeting high-end TVs, which currently start at around a couple/few thousand dollars.
Last edited:
It will never happen because they will never find a way to make it profitable.
If you want an Apple television buy a B&O one, it's the closest thing there is. You'll get a design that looks like something Apple could have come up and first class integration with the Apple TV. The BeoVision Eclipse even has Airplay built-in.
If you want an Apple television buy a B&O one, it's the closest thing there is. You'll get a design that looks like something Apple could have come up and first class integration with the Apple TV. The BeoVision Eclipse even has Airplay built-in.
Slightly wrong there with the B&O Horizon. It does not have AirPlay built in. The Horizon does look nice however, it is very very very cheaply made by a Philips subsidiary. It has a very basic, cheap panel that does not even feature HDR let alone Dolby Vision. It's Android OS is ridden with bugs. It's actually a true disgrace of a TV that really belongs in 2012. It should never of been released by B&O due to its terrible screen and huge price point - it's kind of a joke to see what fools will buy into it. Sadly B&O have been close to bankruptcy since the mid 1980s and products like this really don't help. The brand is often bought by clueless new money fools. It's a shame as their PLAY range has a great direction and strategy for the Apple generation but BANG&OLUFSEN really seem to be a dire company with poor quality components stuffed into exaggerated price points aimed at the clueless with disgraceful customer service.
A Sony A1 55" is actually cheaper to buy than the 40" LCD panel non HDR Horizon.
[doublepost=1524607768][/doublepost]
BUT WHO outside of the USA is buying 65" TVs??? Is this a tiny market? Put it this way - the world is shrinking in size, 65million people are refugees, millennials are choosing to live in the city now rather than the suburbs of say 15-20 years ago - in tiny apartments. What I'm questioning is, how the heck does a 65" TV fit in today's small rooms?
This is why the market for 40" or 43" has to continue. As the world becomes more crowded, I simply can't see how these huge TVs can grow in size. Where the heck do you put them? Have you seen how tiny living rooms are in UK houses for example?
Personally, Id love a SONY A1 OLED in 43" size but sadly I know this isn't going to happen.
BTW I'm confused with LGs UK pricing of its 2018 TVs. The C8 55" is 2500 dollars so that should be £1800 + taxes. So why is it £3000 in the UK???
[doublepost=1524608120][/doublepost]
HARSH!!! In my spare time I and a best friend are property developers. We have two student houses that we rent out. The money from them pays for my travelling that I love to do.
The houses have the wow factor interior design wise. Three years ago, we bought two SONY 32" LCD TVs for £199 each from Waitrose. They were nicely made and have a damn decent picture from the Apple TV 3 that we connected to them at the time. The students loved them!!!
[doublepost=1524609273][/doublepost]Should Apple make a TV? No, not for me, as I like to buy a new Apple TV box everytime that they release a new one - ATV2, 3, 4 and 5.
I change the Apple TV box every two years or so. I keep a TV for 10 years.
Should Apple design a beautiful monitor for their new Mac Pro in 2019 that I can connect a Apple TV 4K to and add a sound bar to? Yes please
Last edited:
Canadians, Australians to name a few other places. Hardly a tiny market.
It has more to do with home size than just buying a large TV.
Yea, that is the UK, which has a tiny average living space compared to the US, Canada, and Australia. The average living room size here would be around the total living space in the UK.
A larger living room would usually benefit from a larger TV. I am not saying that a smaller TV is going away, but there is definitely a large market for larger sized TVs.
I knew when I saw the author of this post there would be a shoehorned mention of traveling in there somewhere.
The U.S. alone has about 2/3 the population of the entire European Union, which is a huge market for a single country. Not to mention that large disposable incomes means a lot of people willing to pay for expensive large TV’s. The fact that we have 2/3 the population of the EU combined with the fact that the land area of the U.S. is about two and a quarter times larger than the EU means we can continue to live in larger homes (accommodating large TV’s), even as the population grows. Clearly the high-end, small screen TV market isn’t big enough for manufacturers to worry about. Practically the whole high-end TV market starts at 55”, and for some models, like the the Z9D, at 65”. Things generally cater to the U.S. market because of the population and disposable incomes. Personally, I love my my 55” 900E; the size is perfect for my living room and it looks great between my floorstanding speakers.
Last edited:
Yes I do love to travel!
Fair play to TV sales in the states but strange how Panasonic left the US I guess. On a subject of travel, only 30% of Americans own a passport for travelling outside of the US! Maybe they are watching too much TV
Also it's regarded as the unhealthiest country in the world in terms of obesity, diabetes and cancer so lifestyle changes sound horrific there.Also many people chose to live in the cities - NYC were apartment space is probably not much larger than a 65" TV
Maybe, they are not the target market for TV. I'd love to see a demographic report on who in the USA is buying TV as it's on decline in many other parts of the world. But the US has always been a market into itself - HUGE gas guzzlers, King size McDonalds, big slurp drinks. It puts out a disgusting 25% of the worlds pollution - pure selfish and vulgar.Glad that you enjoy your SONY though.
Fair play to TV sales in the states but strange how Panasonic left the US I guess.
Also many people chose to live in the cities - NYC were apartment space is probably not much larger than a 65" TV
Glad that you enjoy your SONY though.
I won’t bother with the unrelated pablum. As far as living in cities goes, there are other cities where you can live, besides NYC and San Francisco where you pay exorbitant rates for a shoebox. In large cities in the Midwest, you can easily rent a two bedroom apartment, which would accommodate a large TV, for less than $1000/month. Only about 8% of the U.S. population lives in one of the ten largest cities here, so there’s no reason they’d play a major role in shaping the TV market with regards to size. Especially since their income situation probably doesn’t afford them the ability to buy an expensive TV anyway, since so much of their income goes to rent. Some of the largest cities are actually reasonable for cost of living too, like Philadelphia, affording people the possibility of a larger apartment, and thus a larger TV.
And Panasonic may have left because they haven’t been seen as a premier brand here for awhile. That has generally been Sony, Samsung, and since the mainstreaming of OLED, LG.
Last edited:
What is with all the hate?Yes I do love to travel!
Fair play to TV sales in the states but strange how Panasonic left the US I guess. On a subject of travel, only 30% of Americans own a passport for travelling outside of the US! Maybe they are watching too much TV
Also many people chose to live in the cities - NYC were apartment space is probably not much larger than a 65" TV
Glad that you enjoy your SONY though.
I read an article a while back saying that Panasonic was a little late when it came to LCD related technologies, and they pushed their plasma TVs, which were really good at one point in time, but became less desirable by the US consumer as LCD TVs became more advanced and cheaper.
By the time all the other big companies had plenty 4K LED LCDs, and many of them had or was working on OLED TVs, Panasonic just was playing catch-up. Panasonic had an inferior product, and people stopped buying.
Panasonic decided that it couldn't compete with the other companies in the US, so they left. BUT, they could be back with the OLED TVs that they have been working on.
EDIT: I did a search for the article, but I couldn't find it. If I end up finding it, I will link it.
[doublepost=1524667896][/doublepost]In my mind, selling a TV would usually be one of the following business plans:
Sell a TV that is cheaper than most competitors.
Sell a TV that that has Technology/features/services/design that no one else has.
Sell a TV that is some combination of the above.
Sell a TV that uses marketing to give off the impression that it is one or more of the above even though it may not be.
I think we could eliminate Apple competing with lower prices. The profit margins are already really thin, so Apple would really have to add something to get people to pay a premium price on a TV.
So, the question is, what could Apple add/change to the TV to make it worth paying the Apple Tax on it.
There are many reasons for Apple not to make a TV, but other than it being a little more convenient to have something built-in instead of an external box, I have yet to see any real reason for Apple to make a TV.
I agree with this.
This too.Should Apple design a beautiful monitor for their new Mac Pro in 2019 that I can connect a Apple TV 4K to and add a sound bar to? Yes please