May 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM EDT — AAPL: 562.29 (-3.03, -0.54%) | NASDAQ: 2837.53 (-1.85, -0.07%)

Piper’s Munster: Apple TVs will come in a range of sizes, twice the price of similar-sized TVs

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 · 3:56 pm · 43 Comments

“Apple analyst Gene Munster just reiterated his belief that Apple is going to launch a TV next year,” Henry Blodget reports for The Business Insider. “He made the comments at our IGNITION: Future of Media conference this morning.”

Some details:
• Apple TV will be a full-fledged TV set
• Apple TVs will come in a range of sizes
• Apple’s TVs will be priced at twice the prevailing market price for a normal TV
• Apple TVs will offer seamless integration with your other Apple devices and services
• Apple TVs will be the first TV that thinks the way you do (Siri voice-contolled)
• You’ll still have to have a cable subscription and cable box
• Apple will launch its TVs for the holiday season next year

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Just tell us when to pre-order or line up!

Categories: News

Tags: Apple HDTV, Apple televisions, apple tv

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

43 Comments

1 2 Next »

observer

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:06 pm · Reply

I just hope that they continue to offer the Apple TV STB and at least add some of the features… I know it’s not Apple’s usual MO but they also don’t usually replace a $100 product with a(n approximate) $1,000 one either. Hopefully there’s some room for both.
- 3l3c7ro
  
  Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 7:52 pm · Reply
  
  It seems like idiocy. Apple would likely only charge a 30% margin on a TV and existing sets are priced to make some profit. The only addition would be an Apple TV at $100.
  
  There is no TV. It is a set top box.
  - ApplePi
    
    Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 11:31 am · Reply
    
    All TV manufacturers charge a premium on their TVs. You get 46″ TVs from $700 – $2500 depending on “Features”.
    
    Take Sony, for example:
    A Sony BRAVIA 46″ 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV** (KDL46EX500)) costs $674 on sale.
    
    A Sony BRAVIA 46″ 1080p 3D LED Smart TV (XBR46HX929) costs $2899… 4X the price.
    
    I think you’ll find Apple’s display will fit in the XBR quality range, but in the middle of the road for price. It WILL be double the price of a low-end unit, but it’ll be high-end quality.
    
    The difference with Apple is that they won’t play the slash and discount games. Sony will heavily discount that XBR when the new model comes out. Apple would price something like that in the $1500 range.
imdn

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:07 pm · Reply

I’m not buying a new TV until my first AppleTV, which will of course, be the largest…
squiggles

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:13 pm · Reply

I’d buy one.
Heroin

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:14 pm · Reply

Still need a cable box? Annoying.
JRA

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:15 pm · Reply

DOA in the market at twice the price. A premium, sure. But not at twice the price.
- FTB
  
  Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:22 pm · Reply
  
  Same thought here.
  
  Not that I believe every rumor out there… Which is all this is right now.
  - derss
    
    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:02 pm · Reply
    
    Munster promises Apple TVs every year for the last five years, so this might not even happen next year at all.
    
    The more so he offers no functionality or technology that appeared only now, making sense releasing these TVs in 2012 and not five years ago.
    
    Obviously, making people talk to TVs is a nonsense. People talk to their iPhones only because there is AI assistant, not simply because they could do simple commands via voice rather than with hands. With TVs, speaking to them makes less sense.
    
    And even arranging a TV record would be done via an iPhone since it is always with you. Of course, one could imagine people taking to a TV controller stick, but not sure that it makes much sense.
    - Half brainless
      
      Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:18 pm · Reply
      
      No one will want to use a mouse.
      
      No one will want to use a keyboard.
      
      No one will want to fly.
      
      No one needs a car.
      
      Still wanna stand by that statement that talking to a TV is nonsense?
      - qka
        
        Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 10:47 pm · Reply
        
        I talk to my TV all the time.
        
        Usually, it is in language my mother would not approve of.
    - botoncandy
      
      Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 12:45 am · Reply
      
      “Obviously, making people talk to TVs is a nonsense..”
      
      Are you kidding? I would LOVE to be able to tell my tv to turn itself on, and go to a channel, program it to record something, and turn itself off at a set time, etc. All without having to find the damn remote.
      - derss
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 1:14 am · Reply
        
        Are you SIRIus?
        
        How a TV supposed to hear what you are talking about without you speaking to the remote, where two (for noise cancellation) microphones would be installed?
        
        TV produces noise when it works, so there is no way you could reliably tell it to do anything without another device close to your mouth — and not any device, but with two microphones for noise cancellation.
        
        So, for now, talking to TV makes no sense.
        
        Truth
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 8:23 am · Reply
        
        The problem with your argument is this: What happens when the remote is your iOS device. My iPhone is in my pocket, always with me. For many this could be said of their iPod touch.
        
        derss
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 9:34 am · Reply
        
        @Truth: I am not saying that talking to your TV is convenient via any devices — either way you need a remote controller or i-device and both are not quite convenient to use for TV.
        
        This is why I said above that people will never really talk that much to TV as many futurists think.
        
        Mentally Challenging
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 11:00 am · Reply
        
        You make no sense. It’s very easy for the TV to filter out the audio it’s playing and discern what it’s hearing.
        
        Mentally Challenging
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 11:02 am · Reply
        
        And how is a remote or your iDevice inconvenient? Quite the opposite.
        
        derss
        
        Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 2:18 pm · Reply
        
        @Mentally Challenging: fair mention, but TVs can only filter out their own noises, not any other noises besides your voice. So talking to either remote control or an i-device still the way. And using either variant is not quite convenient since you would always have to find the remote or take out your iPhone (or something) to commands.
        
        But, talking to TVs might be burdensome anyway — even if you will not have to talk to it via device for reliable voice recognition.
        
        Needless talking both takes effort and strains further voice after long working day after which you wish to keep mum for hours and hours.
        
        And, at the same time, you might want to browse the channels for something interesting. Thus after your TV session you will have talked out half of lecture with your voice, trying to jump through here and there instead of just instantaneously switch channels via remote control as you do it now.
        
        So while you might be very well able to command a TV set to arrange some recording, it does not really make sense to use voice for commands that work much easier and quicker via normal remote.
        
        This problem is similar to these stupid Holliwood films where in the future people come in and come out of rooms and have to say “light”. Seriously lame concept — this will never work that way, and people will want to talk to their stuff as little as possible, and only when it is easier than to do things other way.
Ericdano

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:15 pm · Reply

No. Munster is wrong. Apple is not going to make a TV set. They are going to make a device that takes multiple sources and manages them. Like a big pass through video thing. Except it is all done from one remote. It will allow you to pass several video sources to a HDMI tv. Thing like the startup screen of an apple tv 1. Sorta like that.

All the devices functions will be controlled via the apple tv using USB since most everything has a USB port on it.
- m159
  
  Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:06 pm · Reply
  
  Keep in mind, most of this rumor is from Henry Blodget, whose crystal ball is cracked in places.
- sjezebel
  
  Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:13 pm · Reply
  
  Wrong. This isn’t just a TV. They’re going to flip the industry upside down like they have many times. It’ll do so much more than just be a monitor that displays broadcast content. It will be an iDevice that integrates with the iOS environment. It will be so flexible, so powerful that it will be unlike any set we’ve seen thus far. Oleophobic surfacing will continue to improve, allowing for the the unit to be a TV/touch surface/computer.
  
  We’ll use it as for touch like an iPad for short-term tasks like checking a map before heading out the door. We’ll wireless link our other devices for mirroring, remote controlling, we’ll talk to it because it’ll have Siri. We’ll watch .mov, .avi and .mkv files in addition to streaming from services. With NFC we’l bounce content back and forth as we see fit, we’ll check our email, use all our iOS apps, seamlessly interface with our Macs. Get the picture? It’s not a TV. It’s an iOS device that’s big, beautiful, powerful and has an amazing screen that will be optimized for use as a TV. But it’s a computer. Even today’s best TVs are simply advanced versions of 20th century TV- nice but primitive.
  
  The Apple HDTV won’t be.
dhs

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:17 pm · Reply

I still don’t understand this. The only benefit is the software which can be delivered in the form of the already existing (or future revision) piece of hardware, tv.
- Loosecannon
  
  Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 11:34 am · Reply
  
  There are a few things that apple tv STB cannot do. No touch screen (good for small kitchen tv’s), cannot voice-control non apple tv content, cannot overlay apps over other sources such as cable/dish. Being inside the tv not just on HDMI 2 input allows you to do this and wow knows what.
_Bill_

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:21 pm · Reply

“Siri voice-contolled” – with the TV on? Will it mute the TV to listen? That would be really annoying with other people talking in the room.

“twice the price of similar-sized TVs” – That doesn’t go with Apple’s style. They surprised with the low price of the iPad and AppleTV. It’ll probably be a little more than competitors, but have some ridiculous screen you can only Apple get with an Apple TV or whatever. Like MacBooks cost a little more than the competition (sometimes), but have features you can’t get anywhere else. That’s Apple’s differentiation, rather than competing on price.
Kristian

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:23 pm · Reply

“Apple will launch its TVs for the holiday season next year”

OMG! Do I have to wait THAT long!!
That is torture! Can I sue someone?
Whatever

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:26 pm · Reply

He don’t know squat – just trying to manipulate the stock again..
botvinnik

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:27 pm · Reply

this is bullshit. yet again.
Richie

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:32 pm · Reply

Walmart had a 42 inch LCD TV for $250. I’d buy an Apple TV for $500 if it comes out with the candy they say it will. Will I pay $1000 …. Most likely not.
R2

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:33 pm · Reply

Nobody’s buying that bullshit.
CourtJester

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:37 pm · Reply

At twice the price of the competition I don’t envisage a mad rush for folk to start junking existing flat screen TV sets. A decent 1080 line set mid-size can be had for £299 to £399. The user experience would have to be phenomenally compelling to persuade most folk to pay double. And then what of 3D which costs a lot more again over a basic set. Of course I would want an Apple TV, but would I prioritise an Apple TV over other desirable products (new car, digital SLR, foreign travel) during these hard times.
John

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 4:43 pm · Reply

No tv is coming ,not gonna happen .$3000 for a 50″ tv ,very limited market as 50″ plus tv’s can be had From $500 to $1000 with the very best at $2000,sharp is selling an 80″ for $3999 …..
alexkhan2000

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:39 pm · Reply

It’ll happen. The time is getting ripe for Apple to do it and do it right. If Apple doesn’t do it, someone else like Google and Microsoft will as they’ve already been trying for a while now. Samsung’s been hard at work developing a “smart TV” for some time now as well. Apple will not sit by idly while these major competitors all work on making the smart TV the hub of the digital household.

A set-top box on its own won’t be enough although I’m sure that will continue to be offered as well. The TV is the natural progression and Apple has been working on this for a long time now. Jobs wouldn’t say he “finally cracked it” for running a “hobby” business. Apple is up to something big with the TV but none of us really have a clue and can only speculate. And that’s what all these rumors are: speculations based on sketchy info culled from here and there.

I, for one, would love to see this from Apple. I’d certainly go over what it can do with a fine comb and weigh the value of it before springing for one, but if the value is there (even it costs significantly more than similar-sized “dumb” TVs) I’d go for it. Macs cost a lot more than similar-spec PCs as well. If there’s a superior user experience then there’s a certain kind of value there that justifies the premium.
Jean Poole

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 5:44 pm · Reply

Cable! – Schmable. Direct & Dish.
cb1

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 7:04 pm · Reply

TV’s at twice the price. WOW – can I stand in line for one now! Just because I can talk to it – why does that make me want to buy it? Or at such a premium?

Silliness.
mxnt41

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 7:09 pm · Reply

So I’ll still need an external box for whatever service provider I have, so I’ll still need a remote for that, what exactly will Siri do? Once my TV is on, other than switching sources and Volume (which can be done from my Sky box remote) I don’t use my TV’s remote at all. My TV is essentially a monitor which happens to have a terrestrial tuner in it – which I barely use. I would assume they’ll use a high quality panel, but that’s not going to be enough.

Regardless, I’m an ambilight fan, so I’m Philips for the near future.
Mike

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 7:55 pm · Reply

Apple doesn’t have pricing and all those details a year in advance. They dont work that way. And even if they did, this goofball wouldn’t be privy to it.