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

[ipedro]

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

Apple shifted the industry from $0-$100 phones to $300-$900 phones because it brought something totally different to the table. Cell phones were prohibitively expensive in the 80's and over time declined to mainstream affordable prices, to even free. Apple put value on the phone again, something people were willing to pay for.

They set the new average price for a smartphone and the competition adjusted to it.

HD TV's used to cost $2,000 to $4,000 but the price steadily declined. You can get a tv for as little as $200 these days. The pattern is the same. An average of $799 will get you a 47-55" TV today. I would pay $1,599 (double) for an Apple TV with its design qualities and ease of use if Apple were able to reinvent the television like they did with music, phones and computers.

People spend way over $1,600 on Apple's computers all the time. Why wouldn't they be willing to invest the same on a TV which has a longer life span?

 

[divinox]

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.

Working in front of TVs is (for most) a "big bag of hurt", to use MR parlor.

p.s. if you want to add a Mac inside of that TV twice the price doesn't get you far.

 

[Leaping Tortois]

isnt LG providing the display panel on many samsung tvs?

No, Both may use TN panels for some of their lower end televisions, but for their higher end stuff LG use IPS screens and Samsung use PVA panels. I personally prefer the PVA's on bigger screens due to the contrast and truer blacks whereas I prefer IPS on monitor sized screens due to colour accuracy, and I believe that the viewing angles are a little better.

EDIT: And each manufactures their own screens.

 

[divinox]

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.

....and how does the data enter the wireless network?

 

[Alucardx03]

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

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

 

[divinox]

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.

until you move away from the baseline model... (goes for all of Apple, across the boards).

 

[Alucardx03]

....and how does the data enter the wireless network?

Um... from the content providers. How does streaming an episode of Modern Family enter the iPad? Through a WiFi connection via the ABC app.

 

[soup4you2]

I can already see it now..

Example Timeline
2012 - the TV is released.
2013 - TV 2.0 is released with 1080p and a Ethernet port (because streaming video on wifi blows)
2014 - Must purchase new TV in order to use latest video feeds and itunes content.
--- The cycle continues, forcing people to upgrade their overpriced TV's every 2-3 years

All in all, i think i'll stick w/ a TV 1/2 the cost, with a Mini running Plex.

 

[Bernard SG]

- Range of sizes and twice current pricing. Munster believes that Apple will introduce its television in a range of sizes, recognizing that customers have different needs. He also believes that Apple will price its television at approximately twice the prevailing market price of similarly-sized televisions. 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.

Clueless analyst is clueless. Price will be comparable to TV sets of similar specs. There will be at most 2 models (sizes) at launch, possibly only 1.
There, I said my prediction.
Can I has analyzt title too?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Twice as expensive sounds about right.

 

[divinox]

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

Granted, but then again, that coin has two sides. After all, they could offer "card-less" and charge double. That said, i stand by my point. Physical solutions are preferred from a piracy perspective.

 

[Alucardx03]

Granted, but then again, that coin has two sides. After all, they could offer "card-less" and charge double. That said, i stand by my point. Physical solutions are preferred from a piracy perspective.

But terrible from a customer perspective... getting back to my original point.

Just because it's the "easiest" solution for the cable companies does not make it a good product. Which is why I said it's a poor technology and in the grand scheme of things, unnecessary.

 

[divinox]

Clueless analyst is clueless. Price will be comparable to TV sets of similar specs. There will be at most 2 models (sizes) at launch, possibly only 1.
There, I said my prediction.
Can I has analyzt title too?

Why would Apple want to go in to a business keeping price at a level in which several competitors - pushing far higher volumes than Apple will - are taking losses, opting out of competition? Sounds like extremely bad business.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

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.

That wouldn't drop the cable box. Every cableco that uses SDV would mean you still need a piece of crap tuning adapter connected to the television by USB.

 

[divinox]

But terrible from a customer perspective... getting back to my original point.

Just because it's the "easiest" solution for the cable companies does not make it a good product. Which is why I said it's a poor technology and in the grand scheme of things, unnecessary.

Oh, i'm sure it is. Never had to bother with cards. Always had cable "in the wall". Just plug it in, boom, set to go. Thats Sweden for you.

(to be honest, we have boxes too. not overly common though).

 

[Alucardx03]

that wouldn't drop the cable box. Every cableco that uses sdv would mean you still need a piece of crap tuning adapter connected to the television by usb.

+1

 

[hipnetic]

Yeesh, how many more of these Apple Television speculative articles must we endure? This is a topic that greatly interests me, so here I am again replying to this latest post. But the guy is guessing, plain and simple, and IMO he sounds way off base. Where to begin?...

Twice the price? Everyone likes to say that Apple's products are overpriced, and maybe that's the case with some of their products, but the iPhone is not twice the price of equivalent Android phones, and the MacBook Air I recently bought had no competition in terms of size/weight, battery life, screen resolution, and SSD storage all at a lower price. My very first Apple product was an Apple AirPort Wi-Fi router (the one that looked like a UFO). There was one other Wi-Fi router available at the time (I think under the Lucent brand) and it was more expensive.

As others have said, I like Apple's current approach: The ATV2 set-top box, at $99. Bump up the specs (1080p), add a Siri microphone to the remote, and let the remote turn on/off my TV and adjust the volume.

I suspect that Apple's constantly trying to work with the networks and movie studios to get all of the content available and get the pricing down (possibly even trying to get some sort of monthly plans). That's the key, but it seems like they're constantly running into one studio/network or another that doesn't want to go along, and that's probably how it's going to remain for a while.

Another approach that I think could work, but I suspect they won't do, is a
next-gen AirPort Extreme / Time Capsule type of device with a cablecard slot and a chip which does on-the-fly MPEG-2 to MP4 conversion. Add a bit firmware/software which handles getting all of the program guide info and scheduling your recordings, which you can set up via the ATV or an app on your iOS device. All of your recordings (and live TV) could be streamed to your ATVs or iOS devices over Wi-Fi.

 

[JPIndustrie]

Apple shifted the industry from $0-$100 phones to $300-$900 phones because it brought something totally different to the table.
...
They set the new average price for a smartphone and the competition adjusted to it.

Uh, no they didn't. $600 high-end smartphones are nothing new. After realizing world domination in the cellular market only happens thanks to carrier subsidies, and further realizing forcing people to pay that while still extending contracts 2 yrs was not viable - did they cave to typical carrier/manufacturer pricing.

Apple brought a lot of new value to the market true, but nothing new from the carrier to the end-user. If anything, the only thing 'revolutionary' was the fact that now in the USDM market, the manufacturer CAN dictate things such as carrier stickers, design, colors, and such. Pricing is STILL firmly in the hands of the carriers and the FCC.

People spend way over $1,600 on Apple's computers all the time. Why wouldn't they be willing to invest the same on a TV which has a longer life span?

If these rumors are true the main challenge is that the computer market is nothing like the Home TV market. The value and positioning are way different and only time will tell if what they really have up their sleeves is worth the cost.

I liken this to the Time Machine example. It is a remarkable NAS and network router but it doesn't light up the Tom's Hardware forums until a slickdeal is found on it.

 

[divinox]

Um... from the content providers. How does streaming an episode of Modern Family enter the iPad? Through a WiFi connection via the ABC app.

So all of a sudden content providers now own cable (actually, you're not that far off point - even though the relation is inverse, if anything). And now they will suddenly, for no good reason, give Apple the key to the kingdom?

You're (knowingly or not) asking for Apple to disrupt cable-providers, but your suggested method is dependent on the co-operation of the same. I could be wrong, but i think examples are scarce of industries willfully disrupting themselves, and gate-keepers happily turning over control.

 

[Alucardx03]

Oh, i'm sure it is. Never had to bother with cards. Always had cable "in the wall". Just plug it in, boom, set to go. Thats Sweden for you.

(to be honest, we have boxes too. not overly common though).

The damn thing NEVER works the way it's supposed to. In a lot of ways, I think the CableCard is a way around the illegality of not offering a solution for third-party devices. They make it such a pain in the ass to use, you almost want to use the company-supplied DVR, which is saying something.

And then, you add the tuning adapter which is just about as bad as the CableCard and it's a hellish "solution" to a very simple problem.

I can't get two SDV channels to record simultaneously no matter what I do.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

HD TV's used to cost $2,000 to $4,000 but the price steadily declined. You can get a tv for as little as $200 these days. The pattern is the same. An average of $799 will get you a 47-55" TV today. I would pay $1,599 (double) for an Apple TV with its design qualities and ease of use if Apple were able to reinvent the television like they did with music, phones and computers.

I would pay $5K for a TV just like I did four years ago but not for any pointless widgets.

For image quality.

Amazing how many people on a forum related to a brand that promotes a "higher quality experience" don't even consider it a major selling point. In a device whose entire reason for existing is to show images.

 

[Alucardx03]

So all of a sudden content providers now own cable (actually, you're not that far off point - even though the relation is inverse, if anything). And now they will suddenly, for no good reason, give Apple the key to the kingdom?

You're (knowingly or not) asking for Apple to disrupt cable-providers, but your suggested method is dependent on the co-operation of the same. I could be wrong, but i think examples are scarce of industries willfully disrupting themselves, and gate-keepers happily turning over control.

Aren't they doing that already? The "cord cutters" can attest to this.

Content providers don't want to be held up by the cable providers-- just ask HBO.

Cable companies are in a very precarious position. They have leverage, but not for long. Content providers would much rather deliver content directly to the individual. AMC would love to charge for content like HBO and Showtime, but can't because of the cableco's. Instead, they're forced to make significant cuts to their shows which affect quality.

HBO and Showtime would love to charge customers individually without going through cable companies, but can't because of threats from the cable companies. Right now, it's a house of cards.

 

[motulist]

There's only one way that this makes any sense. Apple would have to have found some legal way to provide instant on-demand access to all the tv shows that you already pay for with your cable package, but without having to get any contracts signed by any studios or anything. Like maybe they found a legal argument saying that mass-storage DVRs with multiple tuners are legal for people to have at home, so it should be perfectly legal for Apple to offer DVR capability that records all the shows that legally come over your cable connection that you pay for and legally stores them into the essentially infinite sized DVR space at Apple's data farm.

TL;DR an Apple TV set only makes sense if Apple found a way to legally offer you on-demand access to all the shows that you pay for through your cable subscription, but without having to sign any deals with the studios.

 

[divinox]

Yeesh, how many more of these Apple Television speculative articles must we endure? This is a topic that greatly interests me, so here I am again replying to this latest post. But the guy is guessing, plain and simple, and IMO he sounds way off base. Where to begin?...

Twice the price? Everyone likes to say that Apple's products are overpriced, and maybe that's the case with some of their products, but the iPhone is not twice the price of equivalent Android phones, and the MacBook Air I recently bought had no competition in terms of size/weight, battery life, screen resolution, and SSD storage all at a lower price. My very first Apple product was an Apple AirPort Wi-Fi router (the one that looked like a UFO). There was one other Wi-Fi router available at the time (I think under the Lucent brand) and it was more expensive.

As others have said, I like Apple's current approach: The ATV2 set-top box, at $99. Bump up the specs (1080p), add a Siri microphone to the remote, and let the remote turn on/off my TV and adjust the volume.

I suspect that Apple's constantly trying to work with the networks and movie studios to get all of the content available and get the pricing down (possibly even trying to get some sort of monthly plans). That's the key, but it seems like they're constantly running into one studio/network or another that doesn't want to go along, and that's probably how it's going to remain for a while.

Another approach that I think could work, but I suspect they won't do, is a
next-gen AirPort Extreme / Time Capsule type of device with a cablecard slot and a chip which does on-the-fly MPEG-2 to MP4 conversion. Add a bit firmware/software which handles getting all of the program guide info and scheduling your recordings, which you can set up via the ATV or an app on your iOS device. All of your recordings (and live TV) could be streamed to your ATVs or iOS devices over Wi-Fi.

Strange thinking. The analyst is betting on Apple "revolutionizing TV". If so, Apple would enjoy first mover advantage; there would be no "Android" selling at the same price, simply because there won't be an Android (period).

Basically we have this situation. You're arguing that because fooAndroidTV sells at the same point (approx) as the AppleTV, then AppleTV cannot be priced at twice the point. In doing so, you fail to recognize that it is twice the point of fooTV, not fooAndroidTV.

2011 - fooTV: 899
2012 - AppleTV 1799
2014 - fooAndroidTV 1699

That said, if its "just an aTV3", twice the price seems highly unlikely. I'll give you that.

p.s. the last thing you are asking for already exists -- as a non Apple-provided solution though. Works on all iOS devices, through web, and certainly there must be a OSX client too. Nifty indeed.

 

[JAT]

So what do you do? You're the 2nd person here claiming they don't buy cable/dish but refuse to state how you enjoy your tv experience. What are the services? What are your costs (initial and monthly)? What equipment models, do you use?

Well, not directed at me, but it has been over a year now without sat/cable, for us.

• Most TV we watch is on broadcast networks, and I've had an antenna for years. $0
• Netflix. $7.99/month (but I had this before I got rid of sat)
• Tivo since the Mac DVR thing crapped out. $9.99/month (Premiere, $99 because I forgot to shop, $79 @ Amazon)
• Internet for shows like Burn Notice: $70 (but this is for many uses, not solely TV)