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

[damir00]

Big games costs big money. Even if porting, game studios would take huge risks. Are they willing?

All reasonable points though I don't agree with all of them.

To the specific point quoted above - EA just dropped a $1B+ on Pop Cap games. I'd say the precedent has been set - if (and it's a big "if") Apple does this, I have no doubt at all it will garner Big Game support at launch.

PS Current PS3 price is ~$250. XBox 360 is, I believe, now under $200.

 

[cirus]

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.

And how exactly is this relevant. Games, though they may still be run at the same resolution do get more difficult and demanding as the years go on. So basically what you are saying was that if I had hardware that could run a game at 800 by 600 (years ago) I would not have to upgrade if my resolution never changed. I'm sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about. Games get better and better visually at the same resolution (compare games run at 720p from today and from 15 years ago at high settings). Just because I could play the game 15 years ago at 720p is no gaurentee that I can play any current game at 720p today. (or five years ago)

Now, eventually games will reach a limit due to the resolution as you rightly pointed out. However, we are nowhere close to that limit. All games resemble cartoons to some extent and are definately less detailed than the detail that can be seen in a movie for example at 1080p.

As an aside, the movie Avatar took a supercomputer to create/render (in the top 200 most powerfull). All so you could play the movie at 1080p on your TV.

 

[Frazzle]

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

They have. Loewe (Germany) actually has several models with built-in DVR. And a multi-tuner to boot: satellite, cable and terrestrial. Don't think they sell stuff in US though.

Selling a TV across the globe is a major headache. I doubt that Apple will ever make a TV.

My main concern is with Siri though: can you still yell at a voice-controlled TV? Will it yell back at you? Will it turn off and sob?

 

[divinox]

All reasonable points though I don't agree with all of them.

To the specific point quoted above - EA just dropped a $1B+ on Pop Cap games. I'd say the precedent has been set - if (and it's a big "if") Apple does this, I have no doubt at all it will garner Big Game support at launch.

PS Current PS3 price is ~$250. XBox 360 is, I believe, now under $200.

First, EA buying a casual gaming company holds little relevance for big gaming on an Apple platform. It merely means that EA sees that there is money to be made, and that pop cap is a nice way of getting that cash without having to diversify their own operations.

Second, the way things are going were looking at budgets around (at least, my comment) 50-60 mn usd, per game. Thats a massive cost, and a cost you don't easily recoup (especially not by selling games for 0.99 or even 9.99 in the app store). Sure, if Apple gets enough gravity, (big game) game devs. will come. But its a catch 22 issue here. No games, no gamers. No gamers, no games.

Frankly, i don't see the point here. Why would Apple want to increase its own risk, just to go into cut-throat competition in a market they have no (successful) experience in, one they also - arguably - have very little knowledge of. They don't need it to sell the "casual gaming tv", and the casual gaming tv is something you can buy even if you prefer having a ps3 or an xbox... or don't even like gaming at all.

to me theres basically zero upside, and plenty downside of that approach. i just don't get it.

 

[CWallace]

As a long-time Apple shareholder, and enthusiast, this move scares me. It feels like it could be a miss-step. I don't think they can go into a low margin business and reinvent it if people still need to have cable or Directv. If they were able to remove that piece, then I think they can justify a premium.

I don't know. The original iPhone came out in the US at the price point of an unsubsidized phone even though it had a two-year contract commitment and people lined up to buy it. And the original iPhone didn't have the App Store.

So really, Apple could charge twice as much for the same screen size and probably sell lorry-loads of them.

 

[divinox]

They have. Loewe (Germany) actually has several models with built-in DVR. And a multi-tuner to boot: satellite, cable and terrestrial. Don't think they sell stuff in US though.

Selling a TV across the globe is a major headache. I doubt that Apple will ever make a TV.

My main concern is with Siri though: can you still yell at a voice-controlled TV? Will it yell back at you? Will it turn off and sob?

Watch 2001, and figure out for yourself ;- )

 

[AidenShaw]

My main concern is with Siri though: can you still yell at a voice-controlled TV? Will it yell back at you? Will it turn off and sob?

Interesting thought - how on the TV do you wake Siri up?

He can't be listening constantly (imagine Siri trying to follow the conversation from a bunch of beer-drinking SuperBowl couch potatoes).

Do you have to touch the remote to wake Siri? Is there a voice introducer?

In the late '80s/early '90s Digital Equipment Corporation had an AI voice controlled AD system.

Its name was "Diddly". It would listen on the microphone input, ignoring everything until it heard the isolated word "Diddly". When it heard "diddly" - it would then parse and act on the following input.

So,

<pause> Diddly <pause> What's the weather?​

would send Diddly off on a weather search.

Maybe HP should sue Apple and get an injunction banning the sale of the Iphone 4s - since it's such a blatant rip-off of early '90s technology developed by HP.

 

[hipnetic]

Interesting thought - how on the TV do you wake Siri up?

I think I mentioned this is a previous post speculating about an Apple television...what makes the most sense to me is that the remote would have the microphone. Pushing and holding the select button (or an all-new Siri button) on the remote (just as you do with the iPhone 4S) would cause it to listen for the command. To further reduce background noise, pushing-and-holding the button could also mute the TV while it listened.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think I mentioned this is a previous post speculating about an Apple television...what makes the most sense to me is that the remote would have the microphone. Pushing and holding the select button (or an all-new Siri button) on the remote (just as you do with the iPhone 4S) would cause it to listen for the command. To further reduce background noise, pushing-and-holding the button could also mute the TV while it listened.

Nah - bogus.

You should not have to find the remote and push buttons on it in order to invoke Siri.

 

[435713]

I see console talk, I like that idea if Apple would try it. It puts iTunes under a lot of sets if they get market, which they can if they get some killer games. Sony had the PS3 at 599 at launch (US) So I think Apple could have a $500 console at launch and sell plenty at that price point.

The margins come later rather than upfront, but bear in mind the gaming community pulls in more than movie and music sales combined if I am not mistaken. Getting developers on board can be a pain, but EA, Activision (shudder) etc... would gladly have games for the iBox.

Do you have the balls Apple???

 

[Skoal]

Apple tax here we come! I can only imagine what this will cost. I'd be interested in getting one though

 

[Drunken Master]

I think Apple should apply it's famous "one size only" stance just like they do with the iPhone & iPad. Just pick one size and that's it. Once in the hands of the public there should be ample feedback.

If they make it 32", while on the small side, they will have room for substantial Apple Tax without being the most expensive set. When others protest, it can be argued that Apples superiority prevents it from being compared. Simple.

The fanbois will offer lots of reasons to defend Apple & it will sell in huge quantities like iOS devices. They've already got plenty of proven slogans for their marketing plan.

Ad in a holographic image of Steve Jobs to keep the iFans happy and it will revolutionize the definition of couch potato.

How many threads have you posted the same stuff in?

You need to get a life man.

 

[Cruzer442]

I can't believe after all of the comments from many of us pointing out why an Apple television is both unrealistic and unnecessary that we're still talking about it. They already have an Apple TV. It's a little black box. And it's the perfect solution for reinventing television. Cheap, small. It can even be velcroed to the back of your existing television to become completely invisible.

As much as I'd like to see Apple come out with a next-gen AirPort Extreme with a cable card slot and on-the-fly MPEG2-to-MP4 recording, that probably won't happen. But we don't need to speculate on what *will* happen, because it's already here. They have most/all of the television shows and movies available for streaming. They just need to tweak that model a bit. Lower prices, maybe a monthly plan. Longer rental periods would be nice, too. What's holding all of that up isn't Apple, it's the networks and movie studios who don't want the pricing to be too cheap.

Features like Siri, if it comes to pass, can be implemented quite easily into the existing model. An ATV3 with a new remote with a microphone, or simply requiring that you use your iOS device as your Siri remote.

That last point brings me to what I suspect Jobs was thinking when he said that he had figured out how to 'crack the market'. He cracked it by getting iOS devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad) into every home. He then made his TV device (the ATV2) a sub-$100 iOS device accessory. It's a stocking stuffer for everyone with an iOS device. Once he gets those into every home of every iOS user, he's cracked the market. Apple just needs to then leverage that penetration by getting all of the content suppliers (TV networks and movie studios) to play ball and increase the selection, and improve the pricing and rental windows.

As for apps on the ATV...A lot of people expected this to come as soon as the first person cracked open and hacked the ATV2 and determined that it was running iOS and had 8GB of storage. I personally didn't see it as definite, because 8GB is not a ton of storage when you consider that it's also needed to buffer photos and movie rentals. Instead, I saw Apple using the ATV2 as a display accessory for running apps on your iOS device, and we're already seeing them move more in that direction via wireless mirroring. They do have some apps already, though (Netflix, MLB, etc.), so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them open that up more and give developers free reign to create/sell ATV2-native apps. Or perhaps they'll continue more along the current plan and have developers create apps that you install to your iOS device but which can push a different view (rather than simply mirroring what you're already seeing) to the ATV2.

Note that none of what I'm discussing here can't be done on the current-gen ATV2. But I do suspect that we'll see an ATV3 with 1080p output (likely using the A5 CPU/GPU) and Siri functionality.

But as I've said before, unless Apple has plans for televisions which are completely different (in terms of the display itself) such that their vision can't be realized simply by hooking up an ATV2/3 to the TV you already own, I don't see why they would/should create actual televisions. As I mentioned already, one of the beautiful things about the ATV2 is that it's small and cheap. You can have a TV in every room of your house, including a smallish 13" display in your kitchen, and have ATV2's hooked up to all of them. Having them in every room would allow you to make the most of future ATV-compatible apps like room monitors, home automation, etc. But even with what's already available today, it would be nice to watch some cooking shows in the kitchen, or use mirroring to pull up a recipe on the 13" display in your kitchen. If Apple were to sell actual televisions, no one is going to go out and replace all of the TVs in their home, so that would mean that you'd miss out on a lot of the functionality that you could have if your entire house was configured with low-cost ATV boxes in every room.

So the short version of my long-winded diatribe: Stop waiting for some amazing television that Apple might someday offer and instead look at the writing on the wall which shows you the direction that they've already decided to go in (iOS devices in every home, ATV's hooked up to every TV in your home), and think about what new features they could bring to that model that could revolutionize the TV experience.

Agreed.
1) It won't be a TV. The idea of Apple getting into the TV set biz is almost ludicrous.
2) The ala cart pricing has to be a lot cheaper. I have 5 TVs in my house and at any one time all 5 may be on and on different channels. I may actually use 30 of the 500 available channels. Some channels I switch between all day. CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN etc. At night I may watch multiple shows on the different sports channels. Or a sitcom on one of the broadcast network channels. My Son is watching Cartoon network and my daughter is watching the moody 13 year old network. There's a whole lotta Gigabytes streaming into my house over my cable providers coaxial. If I were to stop paying him for that content and instead try to it get via the "internet" on the same pipe I think Mr. Cable Co. is gonna want a piece of that action in the form of $/GB. So now I'm paying Cable CO extra for internet service plus paying the exhorbinate fees currently charged on ATV. Something in this model won't work unless... and this is where I'm just guessing ... the cable company is cut out. Apple has $80B on hand. Thats enough to buy SPRINT and all their towers. Which could be modified to deliver on demand content. Now TV would be "cracked".

 

[JAT]

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.

Uh, what? Sat also charges per box.

 

[divinox]

I see console talk, I like that idea if Apple would try it. It puts iTunes under a lot of sets if they get market, which they can if they get some killer games. Sony had the PS3 at 599 at launch (US) So I think Apple could have a $500 console at launch and sell plenty at that price point.

The margins come later rather than upfront, but bear in mind the gaming community pulls in more than movie and music sales combined if I am not mistaken. Getting developers on board can be a pain, but EA, Activision (shudder) etc... would gladly have games for the iBox.

Do you have the balls Apple???

Apple already tried it... and failed miserably. Further, unless they've been working on it for years behind close doors, they're never gonna make it out in the wild.

 

[Patch Adams]

i'd be interested but they would have to have a customisable UI like Plex. Apple TV UI is boring

 

[69650]

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.

You're comletely missing my point: you do not need to add these things into an Apple TV.

iTunes replace CDs, DVDs, Games, Books, Magazines, Newspapers, etc, etc

So you don't need to add any of the components found in a DVD player, games console, etc.

Instead of a DVD, you buy or rent a film or tv show from iTunes and simply stream it from iCloud to your Apple TV. Simple. No extra components needed. The Apple TV will just be a screen, circuit board, flash memory, tv tuner and hdmi port. It will be very cheap to manufacture - the magic is in the software/UI they put over the top.

A lot of Mac users are willing to shell out to replace their MBP every 3 years, or their iPhone/iPad every year or two, so why wouldn't they be willing to buy a new Apple TV every 3/4/5 years. The main reason most people don't upgrade their TVs more often is coz the current breed of TVs are dull and boring and they don't change that much from year to year.

As for games consoles - the current PS3 launched in 2006. That is 5 years ago and I don't see any signs they are going to launch a newer version anytime soon. So you would not have to upgrade the Apple TV every year to make is a viable games console. If you are really that bothered you would buy a PC/Mac which was upgradable instead.

 

[CplBadboy]

Twice the price eh?

At twice the price they won't sell many. Apples reputation won't carry them through into the TV market as the newbie. The panels will likely be supplied by Sharp and the Quattron range is extremely affordable TV sets (especially if you are an affinity member). However the class leader in panels these days is Panasonic certified by THX etc. With this in mind apple are assuming that just because its an Apple branded screen and it can talk people will pay high premiums - The majority won't - No the vast majority won't as they can have the panel technology for less than half the price and to be honest, no one cares about using a remote. For one - when you have the remote you're in charge!

 

[RobNYC]

A lot of people don't know that cable companies are required by FCC regulations to provide a cable card when one is requested.

Twice the price ? They must not be thinking about selling very many. Look at the Mac Pro. A very nice machine but few are sold.

If Apple wants to sell TV sets they would have to be competitive in the marketplace.

But isn't he problem with cable cards is you lose on demand capability plus the fact that most cable providers barely provide support for them and with switched digital video you'd lost channels you can get with a box.

 

[brdeveloper]

If Apple TV Set will converge MacMini + Apple TV + Apple TBolt display with over 1920p resolution, then it would be worth buying it for twice the standard TV Set prices.

 

[diamond.g]

But isn't he problem with cable cards is you lose on demand capability plus the fact that most cable providers barely provide support for them and with switched digital video you'd lost channels you can get with a box.

SDV actually depends on the tuner, more so than the CableCARD.


You lose on-demand because non cable company STBs don't typically talk back with the provider. Tru2way is supposed to correct that, but AFAIK there aren't any devices that support it.

Remember CableCARD is a decryption device. Not a tuner.

 

[ARM1968]

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)

Apple TV will carry AT LEAST the iPhone 5 hardware. Camera in built to front only. Microphone etc. Siri will be a key feature. Talk to your TV. FaceTime will become more important as well. All the other things from iOS through Blutooth will be used to add to the ease of use. I can easily see a 50% - 100% bump. And they will sell. But would be nice if they put it in a Kuro quality TV, which won't happen.

 

[divinox]

You're comletely missing my point: you do not need to add these things into an Apple TV.

Unless you are implying magic, to get them in you need to add them in.

iTunes replace CDs, DVDs, Games, Books, Magazines, Newspapers, etc, etc

iTunes would never replace DVDs for me, certainly not BR's. Books, Magazines, Newspapers, etc, etc, on a TV for me... not so much.

Further, as these (software-based) "replacements" are easy to replicate they do not make for sustaining high profits.

So you don't need to add any of the components found in a DVD player, games console, etc.

Sure you do. If you want it to be a DVD player or a game console (the latter certainly requires proper hardware). If you meant "watching movies" or "casual gaming" (which you obviously did) state that clearly next time.

Instead of a DVD, you buy or rent a film or tv show from iTunes and simply stream it from iCloud to your Apple TV. Simple. No extra components needed. The Apple TV will just be a screen, circuit board, flash memory, tv tuner and hdmi port. It will be very cheap to manufacture - the magic is in the software/UI they put over the top.

Yeah, cause people in general certainly have the network capacity to stream HD content from the cloud. Yup. As for cheap... if you want to make it... well, good, were talking well beyond 200 usd in BOM, alone. Especially if they're unable to push high volumes.

A lot of Mac users are willing to shell out to replace their MBP every 3 years, or their iPhone/iPad every year or two, so why wouldn't they be willing to buy a new Apple TV every 3/4/5 years. The main reason most people don't upgrade their TVs more often is coz the current breed of TVs are dull and boring and they don't change that much from year to year.

Generally, money is limited - even for Apple consumers. Are there people with the money to do what you said? Certainly. But they are exception, rather than norm. But sure, i agree with the latter. The value proposition currently given is quite poor. Anyway... i think my main disagreement with what you said was in your wording. Not in what you now seem to mean.

As for games consoles - the current PS3 launched in 2006. That is 5 years ago and I don't see any signs they are going to launch a newer version anytime soon. So you would not have to upgrade the Apple TV every year to make is a viable games console. If you are really that bothered you would buy a PC/Mac which was upgradable instead.

...and at its launch it was top-of-the-line, selling at what - >599? - still taking a loss per unit. As for signs, its already in the workings. That said, i doubt well see anything launched until say 2014 (MSFT will probably beat them too it as well). Still, i feel confident in saying that given the state of things, paying extra to get an Apple console would be a bad value prop. for most. Casual gaming, on the other hand, is something completely different. That they can certainly do, and do quite well. But thats hardly a console replacer :- )

----------

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)

Apple TV will carry AT LEAST the iPhone 5 hardware. Camera in built to front only. Microphone etc. Siri will be a key feature. Talk to your TV. FaceTime will become more important as well. All the other things from iOS through Blutooth will be used to add to the ease of use. I can easily see a 50% - 100% bump. And they will sell. But would be nice if they put it in a Kuro quality TV, which won't happen.

Putting it in a premium TV places it well outside of mainstream market. Better to take a "carp" one, and add "magical" software to it - pushing it at the higher end of mainstream products. That way they get volumes, pushing component costs down, raising margins. Also, once they establish an installed base, they can make larger orders and over time spice up the hardware side of things (better panel etc.)

----------

If Apple TV Set will converge MacMini + Apple TV + Apple TBolt display with over 1920p resolution, then it would be worth buying it for twice the standard TV Set prices.

Sure it would, since it would mean that Apple were subsidizing the whole thing. Ferrari could surely sell a testarossa at twice the standard car price too, but it wouldn't make much sense for them to do so.

p.s. 1920p sounds like a really stupid resolution. did you mean 1920x1080 (i.e. 1080p) per chance?

 

[damir00]

So basically what you are saying was that if I had hardware that could run a game at 800 by 600 (years ago) I would not have to upgrade if my resolution never changed.

Never said that.

I'm sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

Right back at you and your straw man, sunshine.

 

[hipnetic]

Apple already has a gaming platform. It's called the iPhone and iPod Touch (and, for niche customers, the iPad). Coupled with an Apple TV, you can even mirror your games to the TV, and I predict that sort of functionality will be refined further. Apple hasn't been targeting the XBox and PS3. They've been targeting the casual gamer more. But that's been a pretty successful approach. The Nintendo DS and Sony PSP sales have dropped, but iOS device sales have surged.

And based on what I've seen of some of the more impressive FPS games for the iPhone 4s and iPad 2, they could probably compete fairly well against the XBox and PS3 with an A5-based $129 ATV. Couple that with a wireless traditional gaming controller and I think they could have a winner.

That $600 price for a PS3...that's what it was, not what it is. I just picked up two XBox 360's with Kinects on Amazon lightning deals for $150-200. The XBox 360 Slim has been out for a while, and the underlying hardware has been out for even longer, so I suspect this hardware can be sold for $150 at a profit. So a $129 A5-based ATV3 is definitely doable. Bring it on.