I don't understand why they want me to buy a whole new tv. My tv works fine and I'm unlikely to replace it for a while. Its easier for me to justify buying an adding device to my existing setup than to replace my perfectly ok tv.
You clearly have not set up TVs for your family. :P
TVs nowadays have absolutely atrocious navigation and remote controls, and it seems absurd that everyone needs to educate themselves on what a DVB-B, C, and T tuners are. TVs today are marketed as "it looks great", not "it just works".
Most people can't tell the different image qualities aside, unless they are completely abhorrent (probably because retail stores tend to give cheaper TVs an analogue signal to sell the expensive ones), and it's the reason why we have to suffer the "Dynamic" video setting on our TVs.
That people in select countries will also know that they can get help from the Apple Geniuses probably also helps a bunch - tech support in this regard is a pain in the ass.
Besides, I am sure that the iTVs will be somewhat unlike what we are used to - for one, I have a Panasonic plasma AND a PS3, and I am still left with no TV browser worth the effort.
The hub-like experience is going to be incredibly interesting, but the price and image quality will still be very important to people more in the know about these things like your median HN user.
But I am excited, because it will give everyone a kick in the ass to raise the bar, regardless of whether I buy one.
This couldn't be more true. Your typical grandmother is about as confused about modern TVs as you can get. They get bewildered when the TV "stops working" because they pushed a button that did something they can't figure out how to un-do.
A typical remote has about fifty buttons on it. I have several and there are buttons on it I have never used, nor can think of any conceivable use for them in the future. Why do I need DVD buttons on my TV remote when it doesn't support the PS3, for instance?
When people shop for TVs the most important thing, even beyond picture quality, is can you figure out the menus? What use is a super high-def 120hz screen if it's running your television shows all stretched and blurry anyway because you have the wrong aspect ratio selected?
Because Apple's marketing goal is to simplify, not add more. In addition they want to draw you into the Apple brand. They want you to have the, "Apple products work great with other Apple products, and I already have all these Apple products, so I might as well choose an Apple product when I need something to do X" mentality. They want full hardware control. A small box wont do that. Another small box will have millions of combinations of other hardware attached to it that may behave in unexpected ways. If they sell you a TV instead, then they can ensure that they're the central hub (and likewise, that everything "just works").
I hate my home entertainment center. Really, really hate it. I mean it works fine, but I have too many remotes, way too many wires (I think R2D2 blew up back there), and doing something seemingly simple ("turn the tv on and watch something") involves operating a stereo, a DVR, and a TV.
And the UI's haven't evolved much in recent years. My TV menus (volume, change source, etc.) look like they run on the same software as an old ATM. I like Tivo, but it hasn't changed much in over a decade and is looking really dated.
The real opportunity lies in the integration options with other devices, like my computer, my iPhone, iPad, etc. But in order to realize it, Apple has to shove other TV manufacturers out of the way.
How old is your set? My TV, which is about 2 years old, isn't this bad. I have 3 HDMI cables running out of it, and when I turn on a device (like the Blu-Ray) it turns the TV on and switches to the correct input. Then I turn off the TV when I'm done and it shuts off the Bly-Ray.
I don't see why buying a new TV should be different than buying a new laptop. A 47" LG LCD TV is about the same price as a Macbook Air, and nobody complains that the MBA requires them to "replace their existing laptop."
Not that I think Apple is going out with TV's. The content situation is still iffy, and I'm not really sure if Apple can do anything about the pure shit interfaces DirectTV and the cable companies put on their services.
On the other hand, people said the same thing about the telecoms pre-iPhone. The way I see it going down: Apple does an exclusive in the US with DirecTV, and gets a satellite raw feed to a 100% Apple interface. Since most people in the US can switch to DirecTV if they want to, if the Apple TV ends up becoming successful, the cable operators would have to also play ball.
Are you saying that simply because TVs are more expensive (and perhaps have longer expected lifespans) than MP3 players, phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, etc.? Most of what Apple (and every other company) sells isn't the first entry into its market, so they're always hoping you will buy "a whole new whatever."
They probably don't expect many people to rush out and replace existing HDTVs. If they get into that market they'll probably do it for the long term. When you're shopping for an Ultra HDTV in the future there will be an Apple model for you to choose from. Also while about 65% of Americans own an HDTV the average American household has 3 TVs. Lots of room for growth there just in the US alone. In China the demand for HDTVs is growing at a crazy pace. I couldn't find any updated statistics but in 2007 year-to-year shipments of HDTVs to China rose 70% So there's a huge world-wide market for HDTVs even if not a single person replaces an existing model just to get the Apple one. (and of course we know 5-10 million people in the US alone will do just that)
Maybe they plan to push display resolutions, the same way they've done with the iPad. Apple is one of the few players with enough clout (and bandwidth) to push 4K resolution TV into living rooms. This could allow them to establish a manufacturing barrier-to-entry and de-commoditize the TV market.
1) 4K panels are still ridiculously expensive. Apple's mastered the supply chain, but not the laws of physics. Also keep in mind that anyone Apple could source 4K displays from at any useful volume will be putting them in their own TVs first.
2) Apple might have the bandwidth to handle 4K streaming. Your average home connection most certainly doesn't. Even if we're very generous and assume everyone has guaranteed 100Mb/s lines, that's still a few hairs under 3x Blu-Ray's bandwidth. You'd almost be able to pull it off if you went into overdrive on the compression. (and no other activity on your line).
And perhaps you meant iPhone 4? The iPad's resolution in terms of DPI isn't significantly higher than a decent notebook.
"You'd almost be able to pull it off if you went into overdrive on the compression."
To a first approximation, a Mbps is a Mbps is a Mbps when it comes to image quality. Just because you push the 4K button on your compressor doesn't make it a high quality image if you don't spot it enough bitrate to actually paint distinct pixels. You'd be far better off measuring image quality in Mbps than resolution. (Except in pathological cases where the video is overshrunk, but I'll let you know when I encounter the video stream that is just too jam packed with quality. Hasn't happened yet.)
My camera claims to take 1080P video, but it's a dirty rotten liar, in as much as I'm able to take the video coming out, cut the resolution in both directions by 2x and cut the bit rate per pixel when I reencode it, and produce a video that is indistinguishable from the original when zoomed full screen. (If you are thinking to yourself "why, that means the original video must not so much have pixels as blotches of color when looked at at the pixel level"... correct. It's what gave me this idea in the first place, and it turns 1.5GB videos that are even today somewhat annoying to store into 200MB videos that are much easier.) And I only stopped at 15% of the original size because I don't care about the last few percent and it's better to still be a bit fluffy than start cutting into real quality, but I suspect I could get it to fully 10% of the original size with only minimal quality loss.
No, I agree -- they definitely won't launch with 4K. But they could launch with something better than 1080p (yes, I meant iPhone 4 resolution). My point is just that they probably view the TV market just the way they viewed the PC, phone and tablet markets: people think they are commoditized, but Apple can qualitatively improve the experience through both UI and manufacturing improvements. Then the margin in what was previously a race-to-the-bottom industry comes back -- and to Apple first.
Another obvious course for them to follow is to allow iOS apps to run directly on the TV. They just need a new input device so users can "touch" the screen while sitting in their sofa.
But I disagree with the end of your point #1. I can absolutely believe that there's a panel manufacturer out there who would collaborate with Apple exclusively for some finite period to deliver some new tech.
I agree 4K is too far out to be realistic for an Apple TV released next year, but in general it's a common Apple strategy to essentially finance the production of a new component and buy up the entire production capacity for that component, so that sometimes even the vendor selling it to Apple can't use it for their own product. We've seen them do this sort of thing with Samsung a few times, just to pick one example.
I have no idea how they compete on "quality", but Apple is the Roman army of logistics, so they might very well win over people on pricing alone and create component and transportation bottlenecks for their competitors in doing so.
and you can do that - you don't have to buy the apple product. since when has apple ever made a product that works for everybody?
apple has a vision, they make a product with as few compromises to that vision as they can. if that doesn't work for you, apple doesn't care. they'll still sell tons.
because they have an agenda to own the entire home entertainment stack. Letting you keep your existing tv is not compatible with this. They don't want customers who are picky about integrating with their existing devices. They want customers that want all apple all the time and love to pay for it.
Apple can basically drive a majority of that TV for $99. What the Apple TV really shows is a complete iOS platform available at that price point. I doubt Sony/Samsung/LG and the like are that efficient.
A little white box hanging off the side of a Sony/Samsung/LG tv is not the user experience or brand experience that Apple want to give you. They want their white shiny logo, in the goddamn middle of your 50 inch TV bezel.
I'm sure they could use iTunes to push songs onto something that is not an iPod too. They don't want to give you that. They don't want to give you a patched together experience at a low price point. Nothing they do is about that. They want to give you an integrated apple experience.
I'm hoping that Apple do this -- the TV industry is screaming out for someone like them to come along and shake up the market. My only concern is to do with obsolescence. Apple could put the key electronics into a replaceable cartridge, so that it can be upgraded every year or so.
In fact, the way I imagined Apple could get into the TV business would be to partner with an existing manufacturer to make TVs that are basically glorified iPod docks, and Apple would make an Apple TV "3.0" that fits into that dock. The TV supplies it power and an infra-red signal, and the Apple TV supplies the picture. Sony, LG or Panasonic could be a launch partner, but the aim would be to have every manufacturer clamouring to make compatible sets (as happens now with iPod speaker docks).
For the TV manufacturers, the advantage is they have another feature bullet-point to promote their hardware (TV manufacturers love their bullet-points and overly hyped feature names).
For Apple, it means they can stay in the business of selling $100 enabling devices for the iTunes store, rather than selling heavy, bulky TVs with razor thin margins.
If you think apple are going to go out of their way to avoid obsolescence, especially over an all-in-one, clean experience, you have been watching a very different apple to me over the last 10 years. (and i have an iPod with a flat battery to sell you).
And to be honest, the kind of electronics involved in this stuff isn't that expensive (to make). More so by the time you're ready to buy your second.
> Apple would make an Apple TV "3.0" that fits into that dock.
I would love it if they did this, but it doesn't sound like The Apple Way. I think they really do want you to replace your whole TV set every couple years. Or, they'll pack enough features and performance into the starting model that it will last 3-5 years before becoming obsolete.
Is it just me, or does this smell like the perfect opportunity for Apple to enter into the "console" gaming arena. Provide a gaming controller and voila! They are competing with the likes of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Difference is, you release a game on the iTV, and its playable on your iPhone and your iPad. Oh man, talk about owning your entire stack...
I don't really know whether to lend any credence to these kinds of rumours that tend to crop up, but it's a bit of a punch to the gut, if the iPad really is slated for a mid-year release instead of March, as I was hoping and expecting.
At the very least, the article opened my eyes to the possibility that we might not get an iPad in late Q1 to early Q2.
Scaling a 600 gram iPad to 55" would cause it to weigh about 12 kilograms, without taking into account any extra material needed to strengthen its case.
I love Apple but I dislike the rumor industry surrounding it. I can't buy a rumor. Wake me when a real product is available. Saves time and less false expectations. Plus the real product will likely rock anyway. Anybody with me?
