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

[Sandman1969]

Twice what brand of TV? That is just a shot in the dark that will probably miss.

I can see twice the lower end, maybe a little higher than Sony. But if it is twice a Sony, no way am I buying it.

Hopefully, continue supporting their lil wonderful black box.

Though, I might be in the market for a TV around that time, but it better not be twice a good TV.

 

[bushido]

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"-$899
42"-$1099
50"-$1299

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

1299 for a 50??? i know there r cheap ones from LG for like 700 but i doubt apple would sell a 50 for 1299. even sony & samsung still sell certain 50 with amazing specs for 2000 >

and again, i dont see this working out on a world wide basis any time soon. every country has different licensing rules and providing such content may work great in the us already but it certainly doesnt work everywhere. hell our lovely music labels dont even allow their music to be played on YouTube anymore here in germany

 

[Alucardx03]

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

Well, if the analyst is right and the iTV is double the cost of competing TVs (which retail for about $4,000), they'll have a tough time.

 

[omyard]

Twice the price? I can't believe even Apple would be that crazy. I love my 2 AppleTV 2s that I have and would strongly consider an actual AppleTV, but not at twice the price. A few hundred I can handle, but anything more is crazy.

The 55" Samsung LED-LCD 3D TV I bought over the summer streams Hulu, Netflix, Pandora and more to it. So all that I'm missing is the ability to do iTunes, Home Sharing and AirPlay, which is why I have my AppleTV 2. If Apple really thinks those 3 features and mirroring for some are worth double the price more power to them, but I think most reasonable people will be content with a TV and an AppleTV 2 box.

For now I'll file this in my "iPad 3 coming late 2011 and crazy iPhone 5 rumors" file.

 

[milo]

see what I did there?

Actually I'd agree with that too, that's basically what I said in the other part of my post. I think given a real choice consumers would choose minitowers over iMacs...it's just that Apple doesn't give that choice.

But in the case of a computer, Apple has the OS (and some unique apps) as the selling point (and in that case the "apple tax" isn't a doubled price tag). I think a souped up aTV3 box would do great, I just don't think most consumers would consider it enough of a selling point to pay twice as much for a TV.

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.

Even that probably isn't even necessary. It's not that hard to recognize when the audio coming in the mic is identical to what's being put out the speakers. That's like saying Siri should get confused when she hears her own speech coming out the speaker.

 

[ericinboston]

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"-$899
42"-$1099
50"-$1299

There's not a single company in the world (such as Sony or Samsung) that would sell a 42" for $200 cheaper than a 50" in the same "model" category. More like a $500 difference for your 2 sizes.

 

[JAT]

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.

Reviews on Amazon, Cnet, etc. Not that important, it's just what I read vs what I see when I actually look at their products.

I'm not that high on LG, either. Not for TVs.

 

[jmerchlinsky]

To integrate or not to integrate

I have a hard time seeing Apple adding enough value as a display provider to justify an integrated Apple TV as anything other than a small volume niche product. I'd love to see the existing AppleTV turn into something better, with voice control and a variety of internet programming sources. But why integrate it into the display? There is such a wide variety of display technologies, sizes, and price points. Apple won't be able to cover all those bases and in the process would severely limit their market potential. Doesn't make sense on the surface. They should be selling the user experience and letting the Samsungs of the world fight the commodity price wars.

I'm considering a couple of possibilities. One is that Apple, partnering with Sharp, has invested in some new kick-ass OLED display technology and believe they can actually beat Samsung, Panasonic, et al at their own game. The other possibility is that the display is somehow integral to the user interace. Something like the new game controllers that have cameras built in you control the TV not (only) by voice commands but also your movements.

 

[kdimitt]

You're not the target market. Cord Cutters and people that want more integration with web/download content and computing are more of the target.



LOL

http://www.crutchfield.com/shopsearch/55"_lcd_tv.html?o=d

If cord cutters are the market, they definitely wouldn't buy a two grand television. Cord Cutter's are by definition frugal. Spending DOUBLE the price on a TV with the same mechanical features aside from integration is completely illogical. That $2000+ television has a lot of features. If apple sold a 55 inch television with the same features it would go for four grand (if you follow the speculation of this article, which is even more ridiculously priced).

 

[Westside guy]

We just bought a 47" LG LED-LCD set for our living room. Five years ago we bought a 32" Sony (that cost more than the LG) that has now replaced the circa-1990 tube television that was in the workout room. As long as the televisions don't break down, I expect we won't be buying another TV for a decade or so.

It's hard to see what Apple could bring to the table to set itself apart from the other manufacturers. The LG set already does Netflix, Amazon Instant, YouTube, and incorporates a Plex client that lets us stream our own videos from a home computer (or we could just plug a hard drive directly into the TV). The iTunes store doesn't really offer anything we can't get elsewhere for a similar price. Plus television prices seem to be dropping rapidly; while they're not commodities yet, they're moving that way. So why would Apple want to offer an entire TV instead of the little low-cost box they currently sell?

 

[JAT]

There's not a single company in the world (such as Sony or Samsung) that would sell a 42" for $200 cheaper than a 50" in the same "model" category. More like a $500 difference for your 2 sizes.

You really ought to look at some Amazon prices before saying stuff.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

They surely must have more up their sleeves than what's listed here. This is little better than a current TV with an Apple TV plugged in.

No way Apple would settle with that.

 

[Alucardx03]

And let's be serious for a moment-- Apple would never touch CableCard. It's a terrible technology prone to problems and much of the service is dependent on the cable provider. Then, you introduce problems like "Tuning Adapters" needed to access certain stations. Being a TiVo owner, I know the pain this causes.

Apple's strategy would probably involve apps as channels. Want to watch NBC? Open the NBC app. Want to access Netflix? Open the Netflix app.

 

[pmjoe]

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has long been one of the strongest advocates for an Apple-branded television set, ...

Piper Jaffray and analyst Gene Munster has long been among the worst predictors of Apple products.

 

[bushido]

I'm not that high on LG, either. Not for TVs.

isnt LG providing the display panel on many samsung tvs?

 

[something3153]

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.

Apple is going to have an interesting time convincing me that I want to play Angry Birds instead of Halo.

----------

isnt LG providing the display panel on many samsung tvs?

LG makes fantastic panels. TVs, not so much. Returned one two years ago because the HDMI inputs had crazy audio lag.

 

[pmjoe]

And let's be serious for a moment-- Apple would never touch CableCard. It's a terrible technology prone to problems and much of the service is dependent on the cable provider.

Let's be serious for a moment -- CableCard is a great technology that has been ruined by cable providers who see it as damaging to their profit model.

 

[Gasu E.]

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

It's nice to know that when the USA is no longer able to keep the world economy going via our massive overconsumption, you will still be around to keep the factory lights on.

 

[ericinboston]

You really ought to look at some Amazon prices before saying stuff.

I did...and Crutchfield.com. I didn't go through every single tv on the face of the planet...but Sony and Samsung which are clear leaders are selling model roughly $400+ in price difference for 42 vs 50. Sure, there may have been 1 single comparison that I missed at $200 difference or something but that is the exception to my claim.

 

[Alucardx03]

Let's be serious for a moment -- CableCard is a great technology that has been ruined by cable providers who see it as damaging to their profit model.

CableCard is one of the most unreliable and unnecessary technologies I've ever experienced.

Why do I need a physical card when software could do the same thing? It's absolutely stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_Conditional_Access_System

 

[nuckinfutz]

If cord cutters are the market, they definitely wouldn't buy a two grand television. Cord Cutter's are by definition frugal. Spending DOUBLE the price on a TV with the same mechanical features aside from integration is completely illogical. That $2000+ television has a lot of features. If apple sold a 55 inch television with the same features it would go for four grand (if you follow the speculation of this article, which is even more ridiculously priced).

I never believe analysts when they speak of pricing. What does double the price of current TV mean? Clearly if Apple delivers something groundbreaking it will not compete with run of the mill HDTV sets in Costco.

I see the HDTV as starting off conservatively but quickly growing to support more functionality. Right now people buy dumb TV because that's what they've always had and they cannot imagine using their TV for much more than that. Apple is good at blowing the cobwebs from our imagination even if it takes a bit longer to seep into our brains about the possibilities.

 

[CodeCowboy]

It's all fun and games till Siri goes down
...again...

Everyone starts screaming at their TVs, "I JUST WANT TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL D%^N IT!"

Siri, "I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I cannot help you at this time."

 

[ericinboston]

We just bought a 47" LG LED-LCD set for our living room. Five years ago we bought a 32" Sony (that cost more than the LG) that has now replaced the circa-1990 tube television that was in the workout room. As long as the televisions don't break down, I expect we won't be buying another TV for a decade or so.

That's also a FANTASTIC point...why would I go REPLACE my 1-5 year old perfectly-working HD tv with something Apple offers? My 55" 4 year old Samsung DLP ($2600 then) rocks. My 42" 1 year old Samsung LCD in a different room is incredible ($600). I'm certainly never replacing them until they break. They cost a decent amount of money (still great value) and I'm not gonna chuck them out, spend again, and become an early adopter on some revolution that may take 10 years to catch on (especially since others won't be replacing tvs thus slowing down the revolution)

 

[Yvan256]

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 have to write this reply just to increase the "I haven't paid for any cable/satellite service in the last x years" ratio. In my case it's been over five years now.

For the price they're charging where I live, and all the good channels being sold in extra package deals, it's so much a rip-off that I basically just got fed up with all of it.

I just wish Apple could sell TV shows seasons for a lot cheaper than they are now. What the networks need to understand is that I'm not paying 2$ for a single episode of a TV show but I wouldn't even think about paying 25 cents to view it once. Let's round it at 10$ per season for a single show. At that price they would sell a lot of subscriptions.

If they want to go free-with-ads, make it interactive and let us vote on the ads we view (say, 0 = I hate it, 5 = I like it). That's a bonus for them right there, direct feedback about their marketing campaigns.

 

[WhoDaKat]

Ok where to start...

1) Free "channel apps", but I don't think they will be pay per show, I think they'll be subscriptions. $.99 a month for ESPN, or whatever cable channel you like with premiums for HBO type channels, maybe $4.99 (price point is probably a pipe dream).

We've seen this before, not all people will jump on the band wagon, but enough that consumers will give it a shot. Critics will pan it because no one will watch TV without <insert your favorite channel>. Critics will be wrong, because people love looking at it and interacting with it. Content providers will do a 180 and come crawling back to the table (getting less than they would have got if they had any foresight at all).

2) Sure, its gonna have Siri, but its also going to have Apples version of Kinect. Obviously Apple and Microsoft are working on multiple UI designs. Microsoft just made a savvy move with Kinect and realized they had a way to bring it to market first with the XBox.

3) Why do they need an actual TV and not just the set top box? Why indeed! Hello 60" Retina iTV! The iPad 3 is yesterdays news! Ok, maybe not Retina...yet, but it will be better than normal. Perhaps that new SuperHD or whatever its called. (How awesome will it be to stand right up on your 60" screen and see no pixelation?)

4) Why twice the price? Because Apples strategy isn't market share driven! They don't have to sell 100 million units, look at the mac. Barely double digit market share and they have the highest profit margins around. They will enter the market making big money on each unit and not selling very many, more of a luxury Apple TV, meanwhile Sony and everyone else will make millions of TVs and sell every one of them at a loss. As time goes on they are able to reduce manufacturing costs making them more competitively priced and now, 5 years later, you have a choice. You can buy the typical TV does what you need it to do, looks decent or you can buy the new 60" SuperHD Retina iTV for a few hundred more.

And Apple takes another industry....