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

[wordsmith27]

an apple tv would be useless to me, i stream everything yeah some not so legal...i use network sites to old eps..i have a netflix...xbox is getting some channels next month as well...i watch a small number of shows and mostly shows on nat geo networks the current dish/cable model doesn't fit me.

and i'll be damned if i pay 2 to 5 to 12 thousand for a tv...hell my current tv's are samsung and dynex and i like dynex a lot and they cost me less for the same viewing since they are an off brand of lg made for best buy....

if apple makes their tv's like how this guy said it will be for the showoffs the ceos etc not the 9 to 5'er who wants to see 2 shows or football or pay for porn(do ppl even still pay 4 porn?)... kids won't care either watching power rangers on 5k tv won't make it better than the 400 to 600 dollar or less tv u have.

 

[divinox]

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

Apple don't need amazing specs. They have magical software (and hype). Right? Take a sub-par panel, sell it as revolutionary. Profit!

 

[Alucardx03]

Not sure what your point is. DCAS is fine as a software solution, but it 1) is just historically a newer technology equivalent to CableCard, and more importantly 2) is really just another example of the cable industry pissing around. The cable industry has no intention of taking any of these technologies seriously when they can profit off of renting you a box and claiming they'll wait for the next great CableCard equivalent.

The most unreliable and unnecessary technologies out there are provider sourced cable boxes and converters.

You're missing the point. Why use a hardware solution, which necessitates the use of additional hardware on top of it (tuning adapters) when EVERYTHING could be solved with software?

Software solutions existed when CableCard was decided upon. CableCard exists only because cable companies wanted a hardware solution it could "rent" to customers every month, not because it was a better choice. You forget, CableCard was created BY the cable industry.

Then, you take into consideration how finicky the technology is, how limited it is, and you've got a steaming pile of crap that is absolutely unneeded.

They are 100% unnecessary. And because of their existence, customers are getting screwed.

 

[riverfreak]

All this talk of "double the price" ignores the simple fact that there is a dramatic range of price and quality of TVs already. 55" LED-LCDs are now scraping the $1000 mark, probably less with holiday sales. High end models range $2-3K. Apple could easily come in at the high end (say Samsung) price point.

Still, it's very hard for me to imagine them entering the TV market without -- as other posters have noted -- something truly disruptive. The market now is totally stagnant. Manufacturers are hurting because people don't upgrade TVs often. Most potential buyers already bought in when flat panel prices started their precipitous decline. The edition of still gimmicky features like 3D and 240Hz was supposed to help spur sales but it really hasn't (for example, most buyers are opting for non-3D).

Disruptive or nothing at all. I just can't see them making an Apple branded screen unless the whole package is truly disruptive. Bundling or building in an Apple TV isn't sufficient.

 

[341328]

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)

Sure, double the price. Hardly. The TV will just have an apple tv built in. It will interface with apples other products to create more combined value around apples ecosystem. The tv will help drive sales of iPhones and iPads. "Gene Munster" is plain wrong. Apple is all about ecosystems and creating more value with each apple product you buy via integration.

 

[divinox]

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.

And the data just magically arrives in the Apple TV? I finally get it, no wonder they are gonna price this at twice the competition!

 

[Cruzer442]

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.

DING DING DING. That's it! That's the game changer. Apple has to control the distribution media. It can't go through DirectTV, Comcast, ATT or any of the "old" school providers. Apple has to get around that problem so that they can offer the per channel ap revenue model.

 

[Rot'nApple]

What people? The 1%?

That's how it usually is for something totally game changing and innovative. The first Betamax, the first flat screen tv, the first iPhone...

But fortunately for us 99%'ers, the 1% take the initial plunge and bring the price down for the rest of us.
/
/
/

 

[Justim]

I don't believe it will be twice the price. The only people that would buy them is hardcore Apple fans with money, or people who have even more money and want to look cool. That isn't their target market.

Apple makes more money off of their "halo effect" buy people buying a product like an iPhone, likening it, and then buying more products. Pricing the TV for one or two types of people would be dUmb, and not Apple. It will be priced competitively.

 

[riverfreak]

The problem with TV is that it's passive entertainment. TV has been shown to be poor educators in some circumstances

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm

There's little interactivity and little to no social networking. A 21st Century TV experience could be.

Social enabled- so that that showing of The Amazing Race can be discussed in real time with other fans/friends.

Space Shifted - My content should follow me around the home...from iPod/iPad to Mac/PC to HDTV and even over at a friends home all enabled by iCloud

Informative - Metadata metadata metadata - Watching video content becomes more enthralling if I can obtain good background material in some cases. Metadata embedded within some programs would make a difference especially for History or Documentary based shows.

Computing - I should be able to pull up documents and other computing content for proper display. I should be able to play games as well right from my TV complete with excellent social interaction.

Communication- Webcam, Siri and app support for making the HDTV a more central device within our home.

----------



You'd be amazed at how much of your life you get back when you're not plunked down in front of the boob tube. You actually have time to be creative in other areas. In the end some of us have realized that

A. Roughly 30% of what you watch are advertisements

B. The Cable industry only follows the cellular industry where it comes to designing packages to to spread out the content you "really" want across multiple premium offerings.

C There has been little innovation that let's me find the right content at the right time nor utilize my expensive TV in other areas beyond watching rank and file video content.

Props to your excellent post, quoted fully here again so folks thread jumping don't miss it.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Exactly.

When an Apple TV is mentioned the first things I think about is integration with the App Store, iPhone/iPad Controller, and it's expensive.

This could possibly be the next device which replaces a desktop Mac/PC.

Can't speak for everybody, but I don't like to sit at a desk and work, watch a movie etc.

Would not buy another desktop Mac, as I prefer the mobility of a MacBookPro, but always having something that I need to hold (even an ipad) is not really ideal.

So, sitting relaxed on the couch with all content from all idevices synchronized in icloud and watching it on a new big desktop Mac sounds appealing.

That's were the premium price comes in. This is not a TV it's a Mac.
(There ya go with a new slogan Apple)

Siri has ways to go and is not ready for primetime yet and if Apple can make agreements with content owners it will be another industry turned on it's head.

 

[divinox]

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....

1) Pipe dream, indeed.

2) They better get going, then. Kinect 2 is rumored to be "around the corner". W8 will surely have Kinect integration sooner rather than later. Xbox is selling like hotcakes (800k units on black monday). Kinect, fastest selling consumer electronic device.

3) Why would you ever want to stand next to your 60" tv? Further, 1080p is sufficient. Also, how would they push even higher-res. content to the end user? Who will pay for that bandwidth and provide for the infrastructure (related to 1).

 

[Alucardx03]

And the data just magically arrives in the Apple TV? I finally get it, no wonder they are gonna price this at twice the competition!

What? The iTV will obviously have a wireless network connection of some sort. It's hard to buy a TV nowadays without one built in.

 

[iisdan]

Fail

I could have told you this...

 

[koruki]

what apple product is the exact same spec and twice the price? People who say their laptops are overpriced always overlook the unibody, magsafe etc etc etc. Their iPads are still had to beat in terms of price.

 

[taylob]

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)

Hahah! He said nothing!! A monkey could have came up with this.

 

[JoeDMD]

really?

Twice the price?

if i can buy a 55" for $1000 + AppleTV2 for $99

then

True Apple Television needs to be $1100 (maybe $100 more for integration).

Apple's competition here is itself.

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

Samsung UN46C9000 46" 3D LED Ultra Slim HDTV selling for 2k Apple TVs will not compete with the bargain TVs - they will be ultra thin, and compete with the high end expensive models.

 

[thenerdal]

Samsung UN46C9000 46" 3D LED Ultra Slim HDTV selling for 2k Apple TVs will not compete with the bargain TVs - they will be ultra thin, and compete with the high end expensive models.

That's because it's 3D and Ultra Thin.

 

[divinox]

You're missing the point. Why use a hardware solution, which necessitates the use of additional hardware on top of it (tuning adapters) when EVERYTHING could be solved with software?

Software solutions existed when CableCard was decided upon. CableCard exists only because cable companies wanted a hardware solution it could "rent" to customers every month, not because it was a better choice. You forget, CableCard was created BY the cable industry.

Then, you take into consideration how finicky the technology is, how limited it is, and you've got a steaming pile of crap that is absolutely unneeded.

They are 100% unnecessary. And because of their existence, customers are getting screwed.

software hacks tend to spread faster than hardware hacks. hence, no wonder cable companies et co opt for physical solutions.

 

[Wild-Bill]

Apple will price its television at approximately twice the prevailing market price of similarly-sized televisions.

No thanks, Apple. I'll just stick to a hacked ATV with Plex, thank you very much.

Unfortunately Steve isn't around anymore to convince me I need to pay twice as much for a television set.

 

[Leaping Tortois]

I'm interested to see what will happen. I think it's entirely possible that they'd keep the live broadcasts while also offering the apps for the different networks.

I don't think Siri would be a good choice for usual control. Not that it wouldn't be neat but it takes all of about 0.25s to change a channel with a remote where as it'd to say "Siri, Change the Channel to Ten" (I'm in Australia), then for Siri to reply "Ok, changing to Ten" What would that be, 10, 15sec? I think Siri would be useful for things like "I want to watch a Crime Drama," "Ok, here's what's on" (Opens a list). Unfortunately I think the remote will remain.

 

[CFreymarc]

Twice price.....



Seriously!

Of course! This is Apple. You think you're going to get all of this neat new technology for free? You and the rest of the market is not entitled to this Genius without paying for it.

 

[Xtremehkr]

"He also believes that Apple will price its television at approximately twice the prevailing market price of similarly-sized televisions."

Uh huh, do go on.

"The price premium would cover the additional hardware and software necessary for integration with the Apple ecosystem while also preserving Apple's high profit margins in a competitive market. "

Oh, okay.

Without too many details, I just don't think this guy has thought this situation all the way through.

Let's just say that additional hardware and software isn't likely to double the price of a new TV, and if Apple is trying to break someone else's market they probably aren't going to try with a 20% profit margin.

 

[Swift]

Crush the unwanted middlemen

The cables are essentially a rotten monopoly with an unjust stranglehold on content. They have a complete conflict of interest. Internet access is bits by wholesale, and TV is bits retail. They will be forever jacking up our monthly bills by controlling access.

The over-the-air networks made sense in the past. These cable tyrants make no sense. Kabletown controls NBC, and you can't tell me that if you own the pipe and a big slice of the content they won't be giving themselves huge favors and blocking or deterring others.

I don't know about you, but my Internet/phone/TV is soaring, and they're extracting every single dime they can by restricting access.

At least for broadcast, all you had to get was an antenna and a TV. Then you had to watch the ads. Now you have to buy the huge subscription, and then they tack on tiers and tiers of more channels. I don't want 400 channels. I want to see all of Boardwalk Empire, for instance. I want to buy directly from producers, and watch the shows streaming on the wholesale bits I buy from whoever.

 

[divinox]

DING DING DING. That's it! That's the game changer. Apple has to control the distribution media. It can't go through DirectTV, Comcast, ATT or any of the "old" school providers. Apple has to get around that problem so that they can offer the per channel ap revenue model.

Even then, they are faced with the realization that content and distribution is tightly coupled. Granted, they will be able to lure some over, and perhaps fund others, but it won't be easy. More likely, content companies will side with cable providers out of fear. After all, if the Apple grass turns out not so green after all, they would be far worse off coming back, asking the old lord for a hand out.