Why I think Apple will make their own TV's

[aohus]

First off, there's a rumor stating that Apple will eventually get into the TV business. The 'source' is an Apple former exec stating that it would be released sometime late this year or next year. I'd take this rumor with a grain of salt, but at the same time, it all makes sense. Here's why

• It is in Apple's interest to control their own display technology. This would mean even less dependence on foreign manufacturers like LG/Samsung for their display manufacturing, which would result in even higher profit margins. Apple knows that manufacturing displays is one of the main constraints in getting supply ready for demand. Add to that, existing tension between Samsung and Apple.
• Apple has the money to put R&D into Display technology. Apple now has the highest market cap in America, surpassing ExxonMobile. I still find this astonishing.
• A lot of the R&D that Apple puts in display will eventually pilfer down to their other products, like the iPhone, iPad, Apple computer monitors, etc. Because as of now, every time Apple sells a product, Samsung/LG is getting a piece of the pie. I'm pretty sure Jobs isn't 100% comfortable with this.
• That AppleTV 'hobby' is just a 'hobby' because it will eventually be incorporated into their TV sets. Think about it, a totally unified singular TV with an Apple logo in the center of the TV bezel, with iTunes, iCloud, and AppleTV ecosystem tied together into one, using Apple's SoC chip (A5, A6) to power the overlay.
• Apple has a good track record with keeping content distributors happy, like the music and movie business. I feel like its just another stepping stone to get them ready for primetime TV viewing.
• This new Apple TV set will blow the competition out of the water. I'm quite sure the tv will be a plasma based set, but this is debatable. If I recall, Apple does have a bunch of plasma tv's on their Apple store.

Whats everyone's take on it? I feel like it makes sense. They have tons of money to spend. I feel like this is the next logical step.

 

[DeftwillP]

iPhone related how?

 

[fireshot91]

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the iPhone.


Secondly, it would be in their best interest to develop a TV that incorporates most of their services into one. But, regardless, I think the price-point would be way too high. They would have to rely on cable/satellite providers for the actual TV signal. Something they don't seem to want to do.

 

[thinkinblue613]

Interesting idea... It sure sounds expensive to make (then again, Apple is rich as heck now) and the market may be smaller since a lot of people already have an HDTV or two.

Also, what will it be called? iTube? iWatchTV? hahaha

 

[thinkinblue613]

iPhone related how?

Probably as a remote control... Similar to how Plex works and their app on the iPhone. Real cool stuff out now, IMO. Imagine the possibilities since the iPhone 4 itself is one solid gadget already.

 

[MasterTick]

I don't agree at all, the TV market is already super competitive, profit margins aren't that high, everything you're proposing can be done with an Apple TV

 

[aohus]

I don't agree at all, the TV market is already super competitive, profit margins aren't that high, everything you're proposing can be done with an Apple TV

but they won't have to rely on Samsung/ other partners to get their display onto iDevices.

With Apple owning their own proprietary display, and pilfering it down to their product lineup, I feel like it would in the long run, save Apple money.

Interesting idea... It sure sounds expensive to make (then again, Apple is rich as heck now) and the market may be smaller since a lot of people already have an HDTV or two.

Also, what will it be called? iTube? iWatchTV? hahaha

maybe keep it the same name, AppleTV? I'm sure naming convention isn't what would stop them hehe.

 

[Des Zac]

You realize this happened 18 years ago right?

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

 

[mcdj]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/508364/

 

[MasterTick]

but they won't have to rely on Samsung/ other partners to get their display onto iDevices.

With Apple owning their own proprietary display, and pilfering it down to their product lineup, I feel like it would in the long run, save Apple money.

They don't need to make TVs to be able to make displays for their other devices.

 

[khkman22]

You do know market cap is just the value of the common stock outstanding, don't you? That $346B number is useless. The number that does matter is the $73B in cash. Yes, that is plenty for them to use on R&D of new products, but you need to learn what it is that allows companies to operate, not just throw out the largest number you hear people talk about.

 

[aohus]

You realize this happened 18 years ago right?

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

im not trying to argue that its never been done before.

its more of just wishful thinking. i know that if Apple were to make a TV, it would be a 'rock em sock em' out of this world TV that will blow competition out of the water.

i'm not thinking 1 or 2 years down the line, could be even 4-5 years down the line, with motion gesture support. <-- probably stretching it, but from other articles I've read on this issue, critics are saying that Apple doesn't go into 'high volume, low margin' businesses,' which makes sense.

 

[Des Zac]

im not trying to argue that its never been done before.

its more of just wishful thinking. i know that if Apple were to make a TV, it would be a 'rock em sock em' out of this world TV that will blow competition out of the water.

i'm not thinking 1 or 2 years down the line, could be even 4-5 years down the line, with motion gesture support. <-- probably stretching it, but from other articles I've read on this issue, critics are saying that Apple doesn't go into 'high volume, low margin' businesses,' which makes sense.

Yes, but as their last attempt to make a television was a failure, they are probably put off from trying it again.

 

[aohus]

Yes, but as their last attempt to make a television was a failure, they are probably put off from trying it again.

they also made the Newton Pad which was an abysmal failure, but that didn't stop them from making an iPad.

 

[Des Zac]

they also made the Newton Pad which was an abysmal failure, but that didn't stop them from making an iPad.

Okay you have me there, but what I think would be best for them is to just sell the cinema display in larger sizes and with HDMI and RYW (I Think that's what it's called, the red, white, and yellow plugs) Support, then it could be used as a monitor and TV.

 

[MisterMe]

...

Whats everyone's take on it? I feel like it makes sense. They have tons of money to spend. ...

It does not make sense. The fact that Apple is America's top-capitalized company with a huge hoard of cash is not a reason to throw its money at every little thing. The fact is that the Japanese and Koreans make excellent flat panel displays. They have numerous customers around the world that gives them tremendous economies of scale. Unless Apple gets into the merchant display panel business, Apple cannot produce its own panels at a price that is competitive with the prices its currently enjoys with the Koreans. You do stay on top by wasting money. You darned sure don't save money by wasting money.

MasterTick is absolutely correct. Developing a TV set would generate no benefit to Apple's display needs. The 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display has the same number of pixels as four (4) 720p HD flat panels. In the technology race, TV displays are now eating the dust of flat panel computer displays.

 

[reputationZed]

Think about it, a totally unified singular TV with an Apple logo in the center of the TV bezel, with iTunes, iCloud, and AppleTV ecosystem tied together into one, using Apple's SoC chip (A5, A6) to power the overlay.

So let me see if I understand the logic of this. Lets say next year Apple releases this magical totally unified singular TV with an Apple logo in the center of the TV bezel. You run down to the Apple store and spend $2000 on one the day it launches. I on the other hand purchase the new (A5/A6) version of the existing Apple TV for $99, spend $1200 on a top of the line Sony/Panasonic/Samsung giving me all the same features (except for the Apple logo in the center of the bezel) for a lower price.

The following year Apple releases a new AppleTV with the A7 chip and even more features. Upgrading my system will cost me another $99, upgrading your system is going to cost you another $2000.

Some how I fail to see how this is a good idea.

 

[TheIntruder]

I don't agree at all, the TV market is already super competitive, profit margins aren't that high, everything you're proposing can be done with an Apple TV

This.

I don't see how "control their own display technology" translates into "less dependence on foreign manufacturers like LG/Samsung for their display manufacturing."

Apple relies entirely upon contract manufacturers like Foxconn to make their products. It stopped assembling its own products long ago, and no longer has any factories.

It may still own the technologies and production processes for its products, but none of them emerge from an Apple factory.

Secondly, display production facilities are almost as expensive as chip fabs, in the billions of dollars. Apple certainly has the cash to fund its own, but the fact that they aren't spending any of it on either kind is telling. That means they would still have to rely on a supplier, if not LGD or Samsung, then one of the Taiwanese suppliers like CMO.

Additionally, the fact that there are only a handful of players in both industries indicates how difficult those businesses are. They're both expensive to enter, and to operate.

The display makers are desperately trying to consolidate production, and move it to cheaper venues like China. Idle chip factories are expensive to maintain and seek utilization in the foundry business.

Apple may be confident, but it's circumspect in choosing where it competes.

That's not to say an Apple Television could not be developed and marketed as a high end competitor. But it's unlikely to sustain the kind of margins Apple demands of its products, and to think that it wouldn't be built by outside suppliers is pure fantasy.

 

[btbrossard]

I don't agree at all, the TV market is already super competitive, profit margins aren't that high, everything you're proposing can be done with an Apple TV

An actual TV would be a huge money pit for Apple.

Besides, the iMac (esp the 27" model) already makes a pretty good tv for a smaller room.

 

[Ashok0]

I have mixed feelings on this. I think an AppleTV could be interesting, but only if Apple can delivering something truly different --- perhaps a 3840x2160 TV? As it stands, the iMac 27" and the LED Cinema Display 27" are already BETTER than HDTVs. I rock out all my media @ 2560x1440, and would never even think of touching an old dated 1080p HDTV ever again.

 

[nutmac]

I personally think Apple will make TVs (which I will call iHDTV in this post) but for reasons different from cited by the original poster.

For one thing, I don't think Apple can fully control their own display technology. Many industry pundits cite that Apple will probably use Samsung's FED backlit LCD for initial iHDTV, which combines the benefits of both plasma and full array LED backlighting. If true, that shows you how little control Apple has over display components. Apple will continue rely on its huge volume purchasing power to influence component suppliers instead.

Furthermore, when Apple launches iHDTVs, it will be because of "wow" features. Merely combining Apple TV onto high quality, spiffy iHDTV chassis won't be enough. I am thinking more alongs the line of interface based on NFC (to allow full swipe from iPhone/iPad to iHDTV to send contents vs. triggering AirPlay buried deep within the dock) and Kinect-like motion sensor. And some believe it will have surround sound soundbar built-in (which isn't as good as dedicated multi-channel speakers, but far better than tiny set of speakers on most TVs).

And of course, Apple will need to bring iTunes Store video library up to shape. Better pricing and terms for rental, possible subscription model, more contents (although already much better than Netflix), ad-supported contents, to name a few.

Finally, Apple will use its volume purchase clout to launch iHDTV at competitive level (e.g., $1999 for 46").

 

[BJMRamage]

do you like to buy an Apple product every few years?
an iPod every so often and an iPhone every year or two?
How about keeping up with Computers?

but, how often does one replace a TV?


what is the repeating purchase point that Apple likes to have?

 

[MisterMe]

I have mixed feelings on this. I think an AppleTV could be interesting, but only if Apple can delivering something truly different --- perhaps a 3840x2160 TV? As it stands, the iMac 27" and the LED Cinema Display 27" are already BETTER than HDTVs. I rock out all my media @ 2560x1440, and would never even think of touching an old dated 1080p HDTV ever again.

Only thing is that the maximum standard resolution of HDTV is 1920x1080. You cannot improve upon this until a new standard is developed. Seeing as how only a few nations have completed the roll-out of HDTV [and the USA is not one of them], this will happen no time soon. If you want to show nine (9) HD images on your 3840x2160 monitor, then fine. If you want to show four (4) HD images on your 2560x1440 Apple Thunderbolt display, then fantastic. But you are deluding yourself if you believe that the HD image on either the imaginary or the real display is better because it has more pixels. You cannot add data to an image.

 

[nutmac]

do you like to buy an Apple product every few years?
an iPod every so often and an iPhone every year or two?
How about keeping up with Computers?

but, how often does one replace a TV?


what is the repeating purchase point that Apple likes to have?

True, but TV costs much more than a phone. Assuming the margin remains the same, a consumer does not need to upgrade as often for Apple to justify making a TV. Plus, many households have more than 1 TV.