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

[JHankwitz]

I love all things Apple - I have two Macs at home and one at the office, and I'm on my second iPhone. If this is true, though, it will fail miserably. I think people would be okay paying slightly more than a competitively priced TV plus the price of the Apple TV set top box, but if Apple's TV is more than $300 or $400 more than the competition, they'll lose most of their market. In the computer and smartphone world, they can get away with charging 10-25% more than competing products, but that's the highest margin they can achieve in the TV world and attain any success. Double the price of existing TVs will be a flop.

Sorry, but Apple buyers purchase on value. PC buyers purchase on price. The past 15 years has clearly shown that value wins out. $81B is clear proof of this.

Once you see the value Apple TV3 has to offer, you'll likely change your mind, just as you did with your Macs and iPhones. GO APPLE GO!

 

[JAT]

not really, i'm 23 and i'm on my 3rd tv within 5 years. i switched from 37 lcd to 40 plasma to 42 led recently

i didnt buy it for the led, i bought it for the bigger screen. the led just happened to be in the same price range. i have the 40 one at my parents house and wanted to replace the 37 with a bigger one at my place at uni. its not like im using 3 tvs at the same time, im not that crazy

Well, one of those is your parents getting a new TV. How long did they have the previous one? And the other...you should have bought what you wanted the first time.

Have you read the reviews on some of their latest generation TV's? Picture quality is actually quite competitive with the big boys now.

People have been saying that since their very first model. Hasn't been remotely accurate yet. And most of the problems I read about are hardware failures. Not interested.

 

[PlipPlop]

Why would it cost the twice the price , wouldnt they be about 90 more seeing as thats how much an Apple Tv would cost. They should just concentrate on that. I doubt the image quality will beat a similar price Panasonic plasma.

 

[aperry]

That's fine. Early adopters always pay more to have the latest and greatest. I wouldn't have a problem paying $2000 for an Apple TV if it would make me as happy with my TV as my Mac does with my computer or my iPhone does with my phone. I'm willing to pay a premium if the product is that much better than anything else. UI and design quality and simplicity are high priorities for me, and I'm willing to pay extra to get it.

Eventually the price will come down to where its worth it for you too.

I'd pay $2k for a TV that makes me that happy too. Unfortunately, nothing Munster described falls into that category, and I'm wondering what feature would actually make me feel that way.

Really all I got from Munster's speculation is a TV that has an ATV built-in to it (with Siri and the app store, which can/will easily be added to an ATV). Apparently it would still need ugly things like IR blasters in order to control other components (including cable box) in the home theater. Or have they magically solved that problem? Am I missing something here?

The only thing that would really excite me is a much deeper integration with the networks that allows Apple to deliver the content. Then they really could provide a new UI and purchase model for live TV. But I'm having a tough time believing that'll be here next year.

 

[Jerome Morrow]

If the iTV is double the cost of competing products, it's going to have a tough time in the market. A quality 60" LED TV retails for around $4,000 and can be had for about $3,000 online. If this report is correct, an equivalent Apple TV would retail for $8,000. I am an Apple fanatic and wouldn't pay $8,000 for a 60" display.

When you get up into that price range, many, many more options open up for home theater. You start getting into mid-range projectors and super high-end displays like the new Elite LCDs.

The "Apple Tax" is fine when the difference is $1,000, but when you start getting into $2,000 and $3,000 price discrepancies, no matter the feature set, you're going to have a tough time selling it.

That depends in what price range Apple is going to introduce Apple TV. I doubt it will be 4000+.

 

[carlgo]

This can only be implemented to its highest potential if it is a satellite-based system that Apple controls (or owns).

This can go on and on, but basically satellite downloads can take the place of cables, phone wires and silly cell towers to connect the Apple user to the world.

A built-in SpacePort could distribute downloads.

Otherwise it is just astonishingly slow downloads and business as usual. A nicer picture and some cobbled up interface isn't compelling for twice the price.

 

[ericinboston]

Considering this is a rumor website...and nothing has been said by Apple, I have a few comments around this entire TV topic:

1)If 2x the price is accurate, this will fail big time. HD screens are basically rock bottom at $700 (except for Black Friday deals) and those are typically either smaller (40") that are average in specs or higher end 32" models. So Apple is going to sell the same thing at $1400? Good luck with that. Never mind the fact that although HD TVs are still extremely popular, most folks are not going to blow $1400 on a bottom-of-the-barrel model by Apple when they can get the same thing (from a specs and visual point of view) for $700. Also, I would argue that the average HD tv is sold for at most $1700 these days.

2)The Apple ecosystem is an entirely new way of watching tv according to Apple. Let's see how consumers like that.

3)Apple seems to want to start a war with the entire cable tv industry...channels, pay per view, advertising, etc. The entire cable/tv system is 100x more complex than the music industry. Regardless of the war, I really don't see how Apple is going to position itself and entice the entire industry to bow to Apple. What can Apple possibly offer that they don't already have? I've been hearing this Apple TV rumor for months and I'm still scratching my head at the entire plan that Apple is going to offer to the cable operators today. This isn't Tivo. This isn't Netflix renting some movies. Apple presumably wants to somehow sell channels, shows, ppv, etc. to the consumer...something the cable operators already do and have us consumers locked in till death.

4)And what about the tech specs regarding non-tv broadcasts? Such as # of HDMI or other inputs? Speaker quality?

Personally I think Apple is going to have a flop with this...especially as they try to shove every aspect of television into 1 black box. Expensive tvs, cable operators that don't even need Apple, and some kind of master plan that is going to convince people that it's too hard (and has been for 30+ years?! yeah, right) to watch tv. Does Apple REALLY think it's too hard to watch tv (I have read they do)? I agree the remotes are a bit clunky, but changing channels is a snap, I can have Favorite channels if I really want, and the Channel Lineup thingy works really well. Not to mention the DVR features. How is Apple's way easier than clicking Channel Up or Volume Down or typing in channel 786 on my single remote?

 

[milo]

For the same reason that they sell the All-in-one iMac in larger numbers versus the Mac mini.

But the iMacs have sold much better because they're a much better product and offer more for the price. The recent update was an improvement but for years minis were way overpriced and way way underpowered, sales were low simply because it was a relatively bad product. Offer a mini with identical specs and features as the iMac minus the screen and I'd wager that the mini would outsell it. Basically all-in-one sells well for iMac is because apple cripples the alternatives, not because there's a preference for it.

In the case of a TV there's probably even less enthusiasm for all-in-one since the TV makes up the vast majority of the cost compared to the box. TVs are a commodity item, people want to just get a good deal on the screen and are happy to add features by hooking a box up.

Its all good until a TV presenter says "Turn off TV"

That's always the joke about voice activated TV. But it shouldn't be an issue if implemented properly considering the TV is aware of what content it's sending out the speakers and should be able to figure out the difference.

You think if apple makes a television set its going to be a screen with just apple tvs features built in? No its going to be so much bore. Think watching live tv with all of apples features on top of it. (without switching inputs). DVR built in. The entire guide available via siri. how would an apple tv box accomplish this? You have to switch to a seperate input to use apple tv. There is just no way for apple to completely do away with cable unless they get EVERYONE on board and tho that might be the future goal it wont happen anytime soon.

Why would an apple box require switching inputs? Couldn't the box have inputs and do the switching itself? I don't see a single thing in your post that would require them making the TV versus just a box.

 

[JHankwitz]

Why would it cost the twice the price , wouldnt they be about 90 more seeing as thats how much an Apple Tv would cost. They should just concentrate on that. I doubt the image quality will beat a similar price Panasonic plasma.

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

 

[aperry]

People have been saying that since their very first model. Hasn't been remotely accurate yet. And most of the problems I read about are hardware failures. Not interested.

No, I don't think people have been saying that about Vizio. They have had a reputation for cheap price and cheap quality and poor performance. The latest models however use LG panels and have received excellent reviews.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Personally I think Apple is going to have a flop with this. Expensive tvs, cable operators that don't even need Apple, and some kind of master plan that is going to convince people that it's too hard (and has been for 30+ years?! yeah, right) to watch tv. I agree the remotes are a bit clunky, but changing channels is a snap, I can have Favorite channels if I really want, and the Channel Lineup thingy works really well. Not to mention the DVR features. How is Apple's way easier than clicking Channel Up or Volume Down or typing in channel 786 on my single remote?

Too many in this thread assume that we all all paying the Comcasts and Dish Networks monthly fees. I haven't paid for a cable or satellite service in 4 years and have no plans to do so.

Apple has an opportunity to promote a new way of delivering content that may appeal to people who simply aren't going to pay a fixed amount of money for content each month.

Those of you happy with the way it is now can continue to pay and use your remotes and set top boxes but some of us aspire for more.

 

[morespce54]

Or you and all of us are missing the point entirely. If Apple TV is really something we can expect next year i think it will be huge. TV, a game console, FaceTime, Apps, iCloud and all of this in a nice and simple UI.

If the price is right it will be one more Apple device you won't be able to live without if you already have Apple devices, because they all work together perfectly, like MAGIC.

Edit: Forgot to mention Siri and gestures.

Yeah, well, wouldn't you need games for that in the first place? I can't possibly see the current games offering (for OS X ans iOS included) as serious games for console...
Plus, I highly doubt MS and Sony would drop their hardware sales for offering a Xbox and PSP app...

 

[ILikeTurtles]

They need to strong-arm the TV business into delivering cheap content the "Apple way", just like they did with music.

... Otherwise it's not even worth making the TV.

Exactly!! You hit the nail on the head!

 

[milo]

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

Well of course it wouldn't JUST have what aTV2 does. But why would any of that require being built into the TV as opposed to being a (much cheaper) standalone box?

 

[nuckinfutz]

In the case of a Computers there's probably even less enthusiasm for all-in-one since the mini-tower makes up the vast majority of the cost compared to the box. Computers are a commodity item, people want to just get a good deal on the screen and are happy to add features by hooking a box up.


.

see what I did there?
;-)

 

[slicecom]

I'd pay $2k for a TV that makes me that happy too. Unfortunately, nothing Munster described falls into that category, and I'm wondering what feature would actually make me feel that way.

Really all I got from Munster's speculation is a TV that has an ATV built-in to it (with Siri and the app store, which can/will easily be added to an ATV). Apparently it would still need ugly things like IR blasters in order to control other components (including cable box) in the home theater. Or have they magically solved that problem? Am I missing something here?

The only thing that would really excite me is a much deeper integration with the networks that allows Apple to deliver the content. Then they really could provide a new UI and purchase model for live TV. But I'm having a tough time believing that'll be here next year.

I'm pretty sure Apple will do something innovative and revolutionary, or at least do the same things others have done but in a much better way. That's their strength.

 

[bushido]

Well, one of those is your parents getting a new TV. How long did they have the previous one? And the other...you should have bought what you wanted the first time.

nooo the 40 one is mine for when i'm home over the weekend. my parents have a 32 one or something. and i had the 37 one for 3 years which was like 1.400 € back in the day.

so i have my 40 one for when i'm home over the weekend
replaced my 37 one which had no internet or usb media toggle features with the 42 one.
moved the 37 one to "my" bedroom at my parents house, i dont really see how its such an issue to upgrade a tv after a few years if something cheaper with more features comes along

anyway, doesnt rly matter 2 talk about how many tvs everyone has on here lol i was merely trying to point out that not everyone waits decades to replace their tvs

 

[topmounter]

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.

I seriously can't see Apple going through the CableCard / Tru2way integration process. Only slightly more likely is Apple integrating into the infrastructure being developed by Comcast / Samsung and TWC / Sony for delivery directly to their respective television sets (which as far as I can tell is not based on Tru2way).

Regardless, the issue here is about content, not technology. Tivo has an easy-to-use interface and is fully capable of receiving OTA, CATV and IP content and all you have to do is hit the power button on your television, but even they have struggled mightily to survive since their inception more than ten years ago.

 

[dilute37]

...seriously...

God please don't make them TWICE as much. One and a half, maybe. But seriously, TWICE?!

 

[rmwebs]

That's always the joke about voice activated TV. But it shouldn't be an issue if implemented properly considering the TV is aware of what content it's sending out the speakers and should be able to figure out the difference.

Well I'd assume they would have a keyword thrown in. E.g instead of "Switch to TV Guide" it would be "Siri, Switch to TV Guide"...its highly unlikely that phrase would be used on TV.

 

[ericinboston]

Too many in this thread assume that we all all paying the Comcasts and Dish Networks monthly fees. I haven't paid for a cable or satellite service in 4 years and have no plans to do so.

Apple has an opportunity to promote a new way of delivering content that may appeal to people who simply aren't going to pay a fixed amount of money for content each month.

Those of you happy with the way it is now can continue to pay and use your remotes and set top boxes but some of us aspire for more.

I agree...but let's not try to sell me/us that a large percentage of folks "watch tv" without cable/dish.

I assume you are streaming your content from your various sources (Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, MLB.TV, etc) via your internet-connected tv/bluray. Fine. I've tried that with my 25Mbit downstream connection and found it sucks.

You may also be watching tv with over-the-air broadcasts. Fine, too.

But even agreeing with you on the fact that not every single human buys cable/dish, you are still paying someone, somewhere for content. That content likely also has advertising. These "content providers" need to make a buck...think of them as baby cable companies...if Apple is going to somehow step in and offer a new/competing service, Apple will now be the content provider responsible for transmission, SLAs, advertising, fees, licensing, etc. If Apple is somehow going to enhance some current content provider, it will be interesting to see how.

There are a lot of other sub topics to discuss but it's far too lengthy to write in text.

Again, I agree and understand what you are saying, but there's a lot to think about...a "content provider" is not going to give stuff away free...it's all licensing and rights and ads.

Leave the "some of us aspire for more" holier-than-thou comments to yourself. Sheeeeez.

 

[aperry]

Too many in this thread assume that we all all paying the Comcasts and Dish Networks monthly fees. I haven't paid for a cable or satellite service in 4 years and have no plans to do so.

Apple has an opportunity to promote a new way of delivering content that may appeal to people who simply aren't going to pay a fixed amount of money for content each month.

Those of you happy with the way it is now can continue to pay and use your remotes and set top boxes but some of us aspire for more.

Pretty sure we would all love what you described. The problem is that no one believes it'll happen. Not next year anyway.

 

[psxp]

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.

I'm with you on that!

 

[ivladster]

Oh, these are all speculations. I can't see Apple selling TV for $2000. Unless they want to sell it to the top 1%. Here are my speculations:

32"-$999
42"-$1199
50"-$1499

These might be more reasonable, unless this TV is pure magic.

 

[aperry]

I'm pretty sure Apple will do something innovative and revolutionary, or at least do the same things others have done but in a much better way. That's their strength.

That's what I'm hoping for as well.