Smart TV Adoption Growing Rapidly, Market Ripe for Apple iTV

[maxosx]

How many times are we going to hear about this Apple iTV without a credible production date rumor?

This much talked about "Apple Concept" has been an ongoing default rumor Apple uses as filler... when the daily number of other Apple rumors falls below Apples comfort zone.

It's worked so well they'll likely continue to replay it over, and over for a long time to come. I don't mind, it's not as obnoxious as other rumors that are "leaked" as needed

 

[iTiki]

What I really want is to be able to pick (purchase) only the programming I want to watch without having to purchase packages of 100s of channels from cable or satellite to get the few I really want. Give me the networks, Showtime, HBO and maybe a dozen other channels and I'm done.

 

[phrehdd]

I am not trying to insult anybody here but why would anyone want the "iTV" or smart TV from Apple? We have 4k coming, plenty of smart streaming devices and if the "iTV" is anything like the ATV, we are stuck with Apple only products or whomever they shake hands with.

Last - will it be like Apple's market model where they expect us to dump our Apple products every 1-3 years for the next generation? What a waste. I love having a large screen TV and if need be, an external box that can either be swapped out or add another box to the mix.

Apple will always have fanboys and if they are happy jumping on this wagon then I wish them well. As for some of us, we will remain skeptical given the last 6 years of Apple's market model digging deep into our pockets.

 

[institute]

Another drawback to a Smart TV compared to a separate streaming box arises for multiple TV households. Unless you buy all the TVs at the same time and from the same company (which I am sure rarely happens) you are faced with everyone in the family having to master multiple complex graphical user interfaces. With a streaming box like the ATV or Roku you can affordably ensure that every TV has the same interface and usability quotient.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Smart TV "adoption" is "growing rapidly" only because manufacturers are making just about EVERY TV a "smart" TV today, especially the higher-end sets. So, if you want a good TV, it will be "smart" whether you want it or not! And I don't. The interfaces are terrible and they include PC-style bloatware from the manufacturer.

Would you like ANYnet+ or Viera Connect with your TV? No thanks.

----------

... if the "iTV" is anything like the ATV, we are stuck with Apple only products or whomever they shake hands with.

What do you mean? Besides using my AppleTV 3 with Netflix, Hulu Plus, Vimeo, etc. - I stream ANY .mp4s in my library through the Apple TV - it is just a platform to watch whatever you want on your TV.

 

[krischik]

The iTV, as it has been dubbed

… by those who don't know that the ITV is a trademark of of the British Independent Television Corporation — which is unlikely to sell there company name.

BTW: This is the reason why the little black box is called AppleTV.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Here's how I imagine Apple positioning a new Apple TV (imagine Steve Jobs, but Schiller or Cook will do fine):
-The Apple TV as we know it has been great. But as of today, this product is no more. What are we replacing it with? Blah blah here's all the awesome stuff it does...$199 or $299 or some such for the set-top box. But there is one more thing. Then they show the full-blown TV which has some amazing industrial design and integrated functionality for a more profitable price. For those who already have the display, plug in the set-top box. If you're up for a TV upgrade, pick up one with the integrated display.

Lovely idea. But as has been said many times before, if Apple is going to deliver the whole software experience in a cheap box, why buy the full TV? Apple's television is going to be made by someone else who will be very likely to take the exact same panel and put it in a less pretty frame with their logo on it and probably offer it for substantially less than the one with the Apple logo on it. It will be the exact same panel, which means the exact same quality of picture. If we can save many hundreds on THAT TV and then attach the full Apple software experience via a cheap add-on box, why buy the whole cow?

Think of it like this: if iOS and OS X were available to run on anyone's hardware (so users would have the exact same experience), do we believe the iPhone & Mac hardware would continue to sell just as well? Key to Apple's success is the lock of software to hardware. If they can be separately purchased, then the Apple Television hardware would be unique in that any head-to-head against other Television hardware specs would carry much more weight. And when the "but Apple's stuff is always superior" arguments can be mitigated down to the frame itself (again, assuming the panel made for Apple by LG or Sharp or whoever is also available in a LG or Sharp-branded television), then only the frame, jacks, etc are left to try to justify an Apple price vs. an LG or Sharp price.

I've long said it and say it again now: I just don't see the TV thing if a set-top box continues to exist for the rest of us. If the bulk of the software experience is available separately for $99, $199 or $299, it seems very likely that people will hook the Apple Television (software) experience to the HDTV they already have or the much less expensive one they will soon buy. If the Apple logo is so important to someone, they could save the money by scratching off the LG or Sharp logo and putting one of those Apple stickers in it's place.

 

[SockRolid]

The thing with 4K, is there is no viable 4k content available and if you are going to stream it or download it to an Apple branded TV, Apple will need get into the ISP business and shake that up too.

This reminds me of all the people who went out and bought HD 720 sets [and watched SD freeview and DVD], then bought 1080 to watch HD freeview and SKY HD, which was streamed in 720, along with App store SD content until recently.

Basically any 4K set released now will probably be obsolete when you need it the most, as the hardware is evolving ahead of the content.

Agree. Being first to the 4K TV market (e.g. Seiki) is a disadvantage right now.

----------

Taken in context of my post, I stand by my comment.

I qualify it by the fact that Apple take about 30% from iPurchases, therefore I (and many others) would have given them more revenue using the App store than I paid for the iPod...

I see your point. Apple will continue to make more and more money through iTunes from music and video purchases (and rentals.) I'm just not convinced that running apps directly on an Apple TV is how Apple will approach the TV market.

I mentioned gesture-controlled gaming, and I think games could be a popular form of app on some future Apple television product. But other more conventional apps (email, browser, Twitter clients, Facebook clients) would be horribly bad on any big TV screen, really.

 

[nickgri]

Smarter

I am not sure if they actually qualify as smart yet. How about making a simple
" bookmark" or go to feature when advertisers commercials come on- isn't that their objective? To get you to go on their website and actually buy the product or at least review it further- why they have they all missed the simplest multi billion dollar deal of allowing us to purchase or review the products? Apple could be the first to make this and corner the industry by connecting the digital info already there with our computers- I have said this for years and yet they still want to make something with hundreds of bells and whistles instead of making money with the simplest function first-please send me a check if you do it Apple- and hire me! zekeg1@me.com

 

[institute]

So add another layer of advertising/commercialization? Wow, that is the last thing I want my Apple TV to do. I would definitely find another solution if that came to be.

 

[Pman17]

Does anyone use smart tv?

 

[Internaut]

Does anyone use smart tv?

Everyone I know who has one uses it. That said, everyone I know who has one falls into the geek demographic. Also, anyone with a Playstation 3 probably has already all smart TV functionality they need. Still, they are not particularly hard to use (if a little clunky). Connect up to your WiFi and decide what services to use (mainly BBC iPlayer and Netflix, in my case).

 

[readyforryan]

I don't think Apple would get into manufacturing TVs, due to the low margins. But if they can provide content then maybe they can subsidize TVs like they do with iPhone.

So, if Apple buys Time Warner (gets HBO and all the other stuff), Direct TV (upgrading their satellites to stream 4K content) then they would have a stronger USP.

Once they have this then the customer could perhaps buy the TV for say $700 and pay $150 per month with a 2-year contract with the local ISP (or apple directly) and get basic content with a fast internet connection.

So for $700 initial and $150 per month, the customer gets a 60" 4K TV with blazing fast internet connection and 4K quality via itunes and content from HBO, Disney etc. The other content providers will be forced to join in due to the demand created.

 

[Russlush3]

I have to say, I bought an LG TV last year with absolutely no care for the smart functions...I already had an Apple TV and was accustomed to using it. However, I now use the smart functions every day while the Apple TV is only used maybe once a week....to watch content that I buy from the iTunes store and can ONLY be played on the Apple TV. This is due to two main reasons that Apple really needs to consider:

-Functionality: With Plex on LG (and Samsung) TVs I can simply stream any podcast or TV show (many at 720 like the Daily Show). The Apple TV requires me to fully download a podcast to my iMac first, then turn on an extra piece of equipment and stream it from my computer.
-Remote: Using the remote to the Apple TV is cumbersome and archaic. Including another ipad-like device that needs to be charged regularly is not logistically smart. Again, my LG has a wii-like remote that is point and click, navigation is faster and more intuitive.

5 years from now we'll be thinking "seriously, we had to schedule recordings and manage them on a local disc?" Everything will be streaming and on demand.

 

[tmanto02]

God I want an iTV! 55inch 4k. Imagine the jailbreak community! Plex and bit torrent awesomeness!

 

[alent1234]

How is buying time Warner going to give you content from Disney?

Comcast bought NBC/universal and it didn't turn out very well. Apple is not going to buy a content company

I don't think Apple would get into manufacturing TVs, due to the low margins. But if they can provide content then maybe they can subsidize TVs like they do with iPhone.

So, if Apple buys Time Warner (gets HBO and all the other stuff), Direct TV (upgrading their satellites to stream 4K content) then they would have a stronger USP.

Once they have this then the customer could perhaps buy the TV for say $700 and pay $150 per month with a 2-year contract with the local ISP (or apple directly) and get basic content with a fast internet connection.

So for $700 initial and $150 per month, the customer gets a 60" 4K TV with blazing fast internet connection and 4K quality via itunes and content from HBO, Disney etc. The other content providers will be forced to join in due to the demand created.

 

[nickgri]

Ads

So add another layer of advertising/commercialization? Wow, that is the last thing I want my Apple TV to do. I would definitely find another solution if that came to be.

You do realize that in order to get products cheaper advertisers need to help pay for all this- it is not free TV production, equipment, post, etc...
We get ads like it or not- the ones we actually want to visit should be able to be easily accessed online- this is the main objective and we do buy products don't we? Shall we be in the dark as to the offerings or forget them after they paid millions to produce these ads? Point is Apple is missing the boat of a huge potential income.

 

[institute]

Apple my be missing income but, for me, the beauty of Netflix subscriptions and streaming my own content to the ATV is the absence of commercial interruption. I have always hated ads interrupting watching a film or show and will always avoid any model that tries to impose them on me.

 

[readyforryan]

How is buying time Warner going to give you content from Disney?

Comcast bought NBC/universal and it didn't turn out very well. Apple is not going to buy a content company

No, buying TW would not give you Disney. But given Apple's relationship with Disney, they might be able to work something out in terms of exclusive content streaming.

And Comcast is a totally different company from Apple.

Anyway, all of it is just fiction. Never going to happen. (But it would be great if it did.)

 

[mic j]

Apple my be missing income but, for me, the beauty of Netflix subscriptions and streaming my own content to the ATV is the absence of commercial interruption. I have always hated ads interrupting watching a film or show and will always avoid any model that tries to impose them on me.

I'll second that! I have DirecTV and DVR everything I watch, then skip through the ads. I just tried Hulu+'s free week trial. I got so annoyed with having to watch 6 ads during a half hour show that I cancelled the trial after 3 days. I hate ads!!!!

 

[ncaissie]

I think Apple would do ok. My LG is great! We use the youtube and netflix on it all the time.

 

[OliverOSX93]

I wonder...

When are people going to catch on that itv is a trademark owned by a BROADCAST CORPORATION. Y'know, the sort of place that won't sell it's name for any amount of money?

I'll be glad to see the next generation of "Apple TV" though

 

[Tech198]

Smart TV's would be more of an annoyance than anything, if Apple doesn't do it right.

 

[ActionableMango]

That's interesting. I wonder if cable Internet will become even MORE profitable? By the way, how do you know those profit margins?

Sorry, I cannot find the article for the TV side of it again, but I vaguely recall Time Warner and Cablevision were about 7%, with Comcast a little bit higher around 9-10% and the satellite guys around 11%.

The 97% profit margin for the Internet side was all over the news back in Feb, search for "cable internet profit margins" and it will be all the top hits.

Back in 2009 Cringely predicted this scenario because TV content costs keep skyrocketing, while the cost to deliver IP packets keeps plummeting.
http://www.cringely.com/2009/05/13/the-future-of-television-part-ii/

 

[Ray J]

Apple doesn't even offer Apple Lossless iTunes downloads. The implication that they would offer 4k HD video is ridiculous IMO.