Speculation on Apple's Television Set: Range of Sizes, Device Integration, Premium Pricing

[linux2mac]

if they double the price i don't see them selling a ton...I know it won't be on par with the TV's, but double...not buying it.

Agreed. Apple needs to price it competitively if they want to take the TV market. Everyone expected the iPad to be more expensive than it was and were shocked when they could grab one at $499. The same needs to happen with TV's (not exactly $499 but on par with comparable size units).

 

[CodeCowboy]

Actual Feature Possibilities

So, after some thought here are some actual features that (might) be useful if one were to "redefine" TV. Not saying they are likely, just trying to think through the current ecosystem of content and major players and actually useful or at least "cool" features.

1. Obviously integrating the Apple TV box.
2. Apple TV (integrated) goes to full HD instead of 720p as it is currently.
3. Thunderbolt connection? (Cable and adapter sold separately )
4. AirPlay for Macs in a future OS update, which would then work with the TV natively.
5. Built in storage/tivo functionality?
6. built in wifi bridge/signal extender? (then you could plug in the TV to a network (or wifi) but have local signals to all multimedia devices be much stronger)
7. Some new high end form factor.
8. Kinnect like navigation?
9. Siri (oops siri's down again.)
10. what about that dynamic 3D patent Apple filed where 3D is visible from wherever you sit without glasses? That would be a 3D game changer. (Personally I don't care about 3D)

 

[pmjoe]

You have any idea about Cablecards? THEY ARE THE WORST!!!! I was a tech years ago and for every 1 cable card job you did, you bring 5 cards and pray 1 of those 5 works. They are garbage and the TV manufactures are not consistent on any set up either. Every TV maker has their own way of setting them up, THEN you get these idiot customer who think they know more and add their own splitters and not tell you and think "oh gold splitters, they must be better because they are gold". Cable cards are more touchy than a modem for internet for signal also. So before you bash people, think again about what people really go through.

I know something about techs. We'd requested to transfer Internet service to our new house. The cable company insisted on charging us $100 to have a tech come out to do it. Before he showed up, I connected everything and the Internet was working. So, he comes in, disconnects the cable modem, hooks up his tester and says, "you don't got enough signal", then proceeds to tell me my working Internet was not working. We were literally arguing about it. Then he proceeds to walk behind the house and do nothing but look up at the back of the house for 5-10 minutes (the cable comes into the basement front of the house). Then he comes back in and asks if there is another cable outlet in the house. He decides the signal is OK there, and starts to hook everything back up in the new location. Then after hooking everything up he decides there isn't enough signal there. So he proceeds to take the box back to where we started and hooks it up. He leaves and 15 minutes later I realize he left his testing equipment. So, fortunately the "tech" had called me when he arrived, and my cell phone had his number to call him directly so he could come pick up his $1000 testing equipment.

Then somewhere in the online setup process, they screwed up my Internet in a 2nd home. I had to spend a half hour on the phone with support to fix that (fortunately I got a great customer service rep who knew exactly what the problem was and explained how badly the tech screwed up).

Remember, I got charged $100 for this.

Sorry if I find a "tech's" view on CableCards to be worthless. A friend of mine just installed a CableCard himself yesterday and told me it went flawless and was the best thing he ever did.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I think that whatever they do content will be key. Somewhere in all of this their plan is to sell you content, just like iTunes and the App Store. They will eliminate the middle man and bring you completely into their eco system. Apple will sell you all your tv, music, and apps. That is their goal, IMHO. And it surely the way Steve would want it.

 

[Herdfan]

They could drop the cable box if they used CableCards (as TiVo does).

I know DirecTV is coming out with their HR34 HMC DVR. It has 5 tuners and can support 3 concurrent remote connections via RVU. So if this set had RVU built in like some current Samsung models (its built in, but not active yet), then perhaps this could work.

 

[pmjoe]

They created the CableCard because it means increased revenue, not because a software solution was "hackable."

Just totally false. CableCard was created because the FCC mandated cable providers do something to open up the cable box market. Cable providers hate CableCard and hate every other alternative that has been considered.

Last I checked, people still get their first CableCard for free from my provider. No revenue in that.

Cable providers want you to rent their boxes, with their front end, and use their VOD services. That is their revenue model. They delay and make difficult any other alternative, and by doing that, it pushes people to their revenue model.

 

[Herdfan]

if i can buy a 55" for $1000

No one will pay $2000 for a 55" Television. Period.

And I can buy a Windows computer for $500-700. But I bought a 27" iMac instead.

In the TV market, yes you can get a 55" TV for $1000. But there are also $2000-3000-4000 models of those same TV's. And you know what, if people didn't buy them, they would not make them. Sony hits all those price points with 55" TV's.

I know I would buy a $1000 55" TV for my MBR, but would not for my Living Room.

 

[bretm]

They could drop the cable box if they used CableCards (as TiVo does). And if Apple could get cable vendors to actually treat CableCards as first-class citizens, it would be a major win. Comcast techs, at least, never have a clue when they need to fix a CableCard problem.

And Charter dropped support for them a year ago except in TiVos, of which you have to get a add on modem for the card to even work. I think Apple will think a bit more outside the box. Nobody has made cable card TVs in any significant amount in years.

 

[69650]

If Apple are to add those things, you need to do way more than double the price. Apples trick will be taking a 399 TV, bundling it with 99 hardware/software, and selling it for 899. To maintain margins in your scenario, the 399 TV would have to sell for 1299, and still be outdated in 2-3 years (as far as gaming goes).

Sorry I don't follow your logic. I meant that you would not need to buy all the extra gadgets you add onto your TV like a DVD Player, Games Console, etc so if you take that into account it's not really twice the price. As far as gaming goes then most people don't upgrade their X Box or PS3 every couple of years do they? Apple would probably provide software/firmware updates every so often to accomodate the latest games requirements.

 

[hipnetic]

1. Obviously integrating the Apple TV box.
2. Apple TV (integrated) goes to full HD instead of 720p as it is currently.
3. Thunderbolt connection? (Cable and adapter sold separately )
4. AirPlay for Macs in a future OS update, which would then work with the TV natively.
5. Built in storage/tivo functionality?
6. built in wifi bridge/signal extender? (then you could plug in the TV to a network (or wifi) but have local signals to all multimedia devices be much stronger)
7. Some new high end form factor.
8. Kinnect like navigation?
9. Siri (oops siri's down again.)
10. what about that dynamic 3D patent Apple filed where 3D is visible from wherever you sit without glasses? That would be a 3D game changer. (Personally I don't care about 3D)

You're sticking way too much crap inside that TV. As I mentioned before, if Apple were to pursue the DVR and Cablecard path, it would make the most sense to do that inside of a next-gen AirPort Express. One centralized box with your router, cablecard slot, iTunes server, and expandable storage. Then all of your rooms with multiple televisions hooked up to ATV boxes can stream any show they want.

But, again, I'll be surprised (albeit happily) if Apple pursues the DVR/Cablecard solution. Instead, they'll continue to do what they're already doing: offer on-demand show-by-show purchases, but hopefully get prices down and maybe offer some sort of bundling monthly pricing.

As for the gaming functionality that some have discussed...again, they already have it. It's right there on your iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone. And they'll continue to move in the direction of letting you play some of those games on the big screen via the ATV box.

 

[justperry]

Even if they added extra features, its still not a good deal, especially outside the states where the ATV 2 is very limited on features.

Fixed that for you.
The AppleTv 1 is very much useable outside of the states.

 

[gugy]

The last thing I want is an ATV box inside a tv set. Those things are getting update at way much faster pace than displays. It seems every year Apple comes up with a new A_ something chip. I would hate to have my tv set outdate after only couple years. AIO is not very smart for a high end HDTV set.

 

[Dr McKay]

Apple TV3 will not be a flatscreen TV with an Apple TV2 built in. It will replace your cable box, antenna, remotes, computer, game console, etc.

 

[ericinboston]

Um... You pay per unit for electricity, water, etc. You haven't noticed that if you leave the lights on all the time, your electricity bill is higher? This is a worthless analogy. You would have to pay for usage like cell phone data plans (only there would be no "unlimited" option.).

Um...not a worthless analogy at all...you are mis-reading my post. Just because I INSTALL another power outlet or bathroom does not mean I INCREASE MY TOTAL CONSUMPTION. Common example: What if I stopped using a bedroom upstairs because I was 80 years old and couldn't get up the stairs?...I build a new bedroom downstairs and now use that bedroom for my lights and water, etc. The water company doesn't come out and charge me more because I have a new bathroom...nor does the electric company for new outlets...nor the phone company for a new phone jack.

A similar example to the above would be for the tv usage...sure, if I just MOVE my tv to the new downstairs bedroom, the cable company wants to come out and do the installation (I am fine with that)...but if I have a SECOND cable box or 10th cable box in the house, and I am the only person living there, I get charged for all those boxes...even though I am 1 person who can only view 1 tv at a time.

I understand, to a point, the reasoning that the cable company doesn't want you to let 5 different people watch super premium channels (HBO, Showtime) all over the house for 1 flat, global fee....BUT THEY SHOULD. This is where dish companies usually win...that you pay a global, set fee and you can hook up like 5 boxes in the house. Not so with "cable" companies. I think that if the cable companies were to offer some kind of "family" package that supported 3 tvs/devices in the house, they would get lots of consumers moving to that package. But alas, they make more profit on charging per box.

Hopefully times will change.

 

[Mr Bigs]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Anything Munster says is pure BS, he's been wrong so many times he has no credibility left.

The iSheeple would pay triple but the wiser won't.

 

[divinox]

Sorry I don't follow your logic. I meant that you would not need to buy all the extra gadgets you add onto your TV like a DVD Player, Games Console, etc so if you take that into account it's not really twice the price. As far as gaming goes then most people don't upgrade their X Box or PS3 every couple of years do they? Apple would probably provide software/firmware updates every so often to accomodate the latest games requirements.

Which means, you have to add the component cost of all those things on top of what you already have. Meaning price will need to go up even further to accommodate for Apples target margin.

If they did what you suggest, they end up with a near-zero margin product. Why would Apple want to do that? Ok... sure, i can see reasons too, via skewed pricing. But skewed pricing doesn't seem like Apples thing. Way easier then to not do those things, get a big margin, and still sell just about as many.

And no, most people don't upgrade their gaming consoles that often. Consoles have quite nice lifespans. How come? Extremely subsidized hardware, once again requiring Apple to either kill their own margin, or go beyond that into subsidization. Im not sure if that is either wise or something Apple would want to pursue (just look at the losses MSFT had to carry to break through with their xbox, Apple would certainly not have it easier. Further, with next gen consoles in the working... timing is... off).

Casual gaming, iOS style? Sure. Without doubt. Beyond that? Doubt it. Too much risk, and no real need. A revolutionized "sub-par TV" priced in the somewhat high-range (consumer range, not videophile range), would do wonders. Affordable, smart, high-margin, high-volume. Ticks just about every box in my opinion. Your solution? Not so much.

 

[chadley_chad]

... errrr .... how much?

As great as Apple products are (and well worth a premium), I cant see myself forking out twice the going rate for a TV, SIRI or not! Whilst manufacturers bring out boring, plasticky, ***** PC's and such like, the world of the TV is a different beast; and I cant see how Apple can improve much on anything (inc. B&O) that isn't already out ... other than SIRI ... although sorry, I'm more than happy with a remote.

It'll all come down to the OS ... but at the end of the day, its primary function is as a TV and I'm buggered if I'm gonna splash out £2K for a 42" Apple when a nice Samsung or Panasonic will pander to my needs at less than half the price (leaving me with more money for an iPad 3 or new iPad!)

 

[Meandmunch]

I highly doubt even Apple would dare be so bold to offer a set at twice the price. A television these days is basically a commodity, no longer the premium appliance it used to be. It can have premium pricing but not twice, and the killer reasons to have one had better be just that.

I'm highly speculative Apple even wants to make a TV, I've said it right in these forums before, a new Apple TV (a Mac Mini equivalent) thats turns your existing TV smart is the way to go. Your TV is just a giant monitor anyways.

 

[damir00]

A discrete AppleTV is $99 and gets you access to the complete Apple Ecosystem. There is no way to justify a price-doubling on a $1000 TV.

Whoever wrote the article/speculation is almost certainly "confused". Or just making stuff up.

 

[S.B.G]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I for one cannot see myself paying almost double the current market rate for an Apple branded TV. I have no problem using the current hockey puck ATV2.

 

[hspace]

And Charter dropped support for them a year ago except in TiVos, of which you have to get a add on modem for the card to even work. I think Apple will think a bit more outside the box. Nobody has made cable card TVs in any significant amount in years.

Eh no. I have a TiVo premiere and use Charter cable. Cable card installation was quick (other than the tech guy never installed one in a TiVo before) - But once the installation notes were followed, everything was a-OK and the cable card has worked flawlessly.

And you do not need a cable modem to use a cable card. Just the coax connected directly into your cable card device. I happen to get my internet from Charter as well, so I have a cable modem. But the coax signal is split between the TiVo and cable modem. They are independent of each other.

In my case a cable card works great. All digital, HD, and premium channels work. The only thing that doesn't work is the on-demand from the cable company. But I never use that anyway.

 

[damir00]

...just look at the losses MSFT had to carry to break through with their xbox, Apple would certainly not have it easier...

Dunno. Microsoft has an expensive development model and a giant pile of historical losses to make good on.

Current XBox 360 is about 500 million polys/second. The PowerVR 6 is about 400 million polys/second. That's obviously a gross over-simplification, it's just to point out that the bar set by current consoles really isn't that high in the year 2011. And residential TVs aren't going past 1080p for the next 20 years, at least. If your hardware can run Battlefield 3 at 1080p30, you're going to be golden for a long, long time.

I have little doubt Apple could crank out an iOS-based console-battling AppleTV in the $250/$300 range and make money doing so. Would love to see it. The console gaming market has gone seriously stale.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Never listen to an analyst making predictions. It would be like giving away everything you own because some nut says that rapture is coming... like a few months ago.

Twice the price? Yeah, I severely doubt that. For starters, this idiot cites it would be needed for margin "and the extra expense of the components required to make it work with Apple's echo system."

Um, did this guy miss the fact that the Apple TV is $99? There isn't much that Apple would probably have to do in order to bring those functions to a dedicated TV set.

Unless Apple is actually thinking about installing a DVR and hard drive in it (which I would love them form, and don't understand why no one else has done that yet).

I expect an Apple Branded TV to cost a premium, sure. Not double. People have shunned premium TV sets as a hole. Only the philes have bought into those, representing less than 5% of the buying market. (This is actually whats hurt Sony and others on their balance sheets, investing too heavily in development of premium sets that end up selling at losses).

What would one pay for an Apple branded television? Guess it depends on what they stick in there. Siri like functions, and a marraige of the Apple TV aren't worth a large premium.

If Apple were smart, they'd use this as a way of getting their echo system into living rooms and make content purchases the gravy train more than the hardware. TV's aren't computers or phones... and different rules apply.

Though, I wonder if an iPod touch like device wouldn't be the remote... which then takes you into worthwhile premium. We'll see. I know I want the biggest screen with the best price... If I have to turn the channel the old fashioned way to afford it, so be it.

 

[fjanderson94]

iTV

I'm sure apple will do this well, like all of their products however the "iTV" would have to be extreamly competitive because I don't see many customers running out to buy a brand new TV when their other one works just fine. It would have to revolutionize completly how TVs function and how we interact with them. I'm just not sure if we will see a tv from apple anytime soon until apple gets everybody on board.

 

[divinox]

Dunno. Microsoft has an expensive development model and a giant pile of historical losses to make good on.

Current XBox 360 is about 500 million polys/second. The PowerVR 6 is about 400 million polys/second. That's obviously a gross over-simplification, it's just to point out that the bar set by current consoles really isn't that high in the year 2011. And residential TVs aren't going past 1080p for the next 20 years, at least. If your hardware can run Battlefield 3 at 1080p30, you're going to be golden for a long, long time.

I have little doubt Apple could crank out an iOS-based console-battling AppleTV in the $250/$300 range and make money doing so. Would love to see it. The console gaming market has gone seriously stale.

I agree on the TV, disagree partly on the state of things in the gaming industry. Granted, unless something amazing happens, we won't push things that much further beyond what we already have, but then again, amazing things are in the works in terms of new types of interfaces, and as result, new types of gaming. Further, one must remember that a console out of the box, and the same console 5 years down the line are different beasts.

As for your last remark, i don't really know what the xbox (or ps3) sell for these days. Not in the american market at least. But i still disagree. First, while they could push a decent device out at that rate, i don't see them doing that while maintaining good margins (remember, they can't rely on pushing extreme volumes out of the gate). Second, while casual gaming is blooming in the iOSphere, premium gaming - not so much. Big games costs big money. Even if porting, game studios would take huge risks. Are they willing? And what trade-off costs do we need to take into equation?

Oh well. Time will tell. For me, gaming would be stupid on Apples behalf. (gaming beyond what they have that is, which in itself is "good enough" to some degree). Personally, i think what they have is golden. Plus, plenty of cost-sharing opportunities and little development costs. Slam it together, mark it up. Profit. If Apple sold a decent TV with wicked software and Apple flair at 999 (or whatever the mainstream price point is over there) maintaining a profit share of 400 usd per unit.... well, yeah.

Granted, they'd need to take quite some risk in doing so, but hey - no risk, no reward.

----------

Never listen to an analyst making predictions. It would be like giving away everything you own because some nut says that rapture is coming... like a few months ago.

Twice the price? Yeah, I severely doubt that. For starters, this idiot cites it would be needed for margin "and the extra expense of the components required to make it work with Apple's echo system."

Um, did this guy miss the fact that the Apple TV is $99? There isn't much that Apple would probably have to do in order to bring those functions to a dedicated TV set.

Unless Apple is actually thinking about installing a DVR and hard drive in it (which I would love them form, and don't understand why no one else has done that yet).

I expect an Apple Branded TV to cost a premium, sure. Not double. People have shunned premium TV sets as a hole. Only the philes have bought into those, representing less than 5% of the buying market. (This is actually whats hurt Sony and others on their balance sheets, investing too heavily in development of premium sets that end up selling at losses).

What would one pay for an Apple branded television? Guess it depends on what they stick in there. Siri like functions, and a marraige of the Apple TV aren't worth a large premium.

If Apple were smart, they'd use this as a way of getting their echo system into living rooms and make content purchases the gravy train more than the hardware. TV's aren't computers or phones... and different rules apply.

Though, I wonder if an iPod touch like device wouldn't be the remote... which then takes you into worthwhile premium. We'll see. I know I want the biggest screen with the best price... If I have to turn the channel the old fashioned way to afford it, so be it.

While i dislike analysts, heres how i read it:

Cost of Apple TV: 99 (not really, but... yeah)
Cost of Decent panel: 399
Cost of Apple magic: undisclosed
Target price-point: 999

End result? Profit!

One of the cheapest tricks in the business book, really. Take two things that are cheap on their own, bundle, mark up, profit.