Analysts: Apple-branded television on track for 2012

50 Comments

1. Just don’t see the advantage of this vs. an improved Apple TV.

   Reply

   1. For the customer, perhaps there is no “functional” advantage versus having an Apple TV box connected to an “generic” HDTV (there would be some “usability” advantage).

      BUT to Apple, I think it will be a great advantage.

      The Apple TV box sells for $99. Even if Apple makes a healthy profit margin, the potential total profit per unit is limited. But, if Apple can sell a complete large-screen TV with unique capabilities for $999, the potential profit per unit is much greater. Even if the profit “margin” is the same or similar compared to Apple TV, Apple would make much more profit “per unit” by selling the complete TV.

      It’s like Mac mini versus iMac. Apple would rather have the customer buy an iMac. It is a complete all-in-one computer. Apple’s profit per iMac is higher than per Mac mini. That’s why Mac mini is distinctly “low-end” compared to iMac, and why there is no “headless” desktop Mac comparable to iMac. Apple makes more profit by selling the complete computer, versus a computer that the customers uses with a non-Apple display.

      Apple TV is equivalent to Mac mini. Steve Jobs is STILL calling it a “hobby” because they are using it as a testing ground for this upcoming complete TV product. The Apple TV box will continue to exist, but there will be a complete Apple TV product that Apple would much rather sell to you than a $99 box.

      Reply

      1. And this is why I bought the mini and not the iMac. Throwing out a perfectly good monitor to upgrade the CPU just does not make sense to me.

         Reply

         1. But even more people buy an iMac, compared to a Mac mini. If even 25% of future Apple TV customers buy the “complete Apple TV” instead of the $99 box, Apple makes 10 times the profit per unit for that 25%.

            Apple didn’t invest in developing Apple TV to ultimately make $30 profit per unit (Apple probably makes that much profit from selling an iPod shuffle). That’s why Steve Jobs still calls it a “hobby”; It won’t be a hobby anymore once Apple starts making $300 profit per unit.

            (And no one is “throwing out” an iMac to upgrade the CPU. They sell it to someone who is fine with the older CPU and get a good portion of the original investment back.)

   2. Well, to Apple it’s a huge potential for income growth. Also, they already have established relationships for big displays. For customers, this means having an Apple logo (picture a big imac) in your living room.. Alot of people are going to want to show this thing off.

      Reply

      1. No, it doesn’t. TVs have a very small margin these days, because there is little to differentiate them. Do you have a Samsung? Sony? Sharp? Visio? Who the hell cares, the picture looks great!

         Plus, people don’t replace their TVs often. Price is a HUGE factor in selling TVs, and unless Apple brings more than AppleTV build-in, there’s not going to be any premium pricing. There won’t be any subsidizing TVs like with the iPhone, either.

         Apple will have to continue to sell AppleTVs as a set-top box, because otherwise it won’t be able to penetrate the market with enough speed to justify the services offered. So that negates the advantages of an AppleTV, UNLESS Apple could somehow undercut pricing from most other major manufacturers.

         That’s not going to happen, either.

         Reply

         1. I agree. My original question was solely about the end user. What functionality could Apple implement in a TV if they owned the whole box like they do with the Mac, iPhone, iPod, and iPad?

         2. “Functionality” would probably be the same, in terms of what the Apple TV adds, whether it is built-in or in a separate box.

            “Usability” would be improved. You know that Apple will make the on-screen menu for controlling the TV much better (100x better). You know that the remote control won’t look like a Fisher-Price toy, and it won’t have dozens of tiny hard to find buttons. You know the TV itself will physically look much better, and use higher quality materials. And there will obviously be one less thing to connect to the TV with wires.

            But again, the primary advantage for offering a complete Apple TV (in addition to the Apple TV box) is to benefit Apple’s profitability, at the expense of the current “commodity” HDTV makers.

         3. Do not see that AppleTV+actual TV set as one device will make any significant sales and, most important, profits — Apple absolutely needs 40% margins, and this level is twice of typical for the industry.

            So even with all the convenience of Apple’s solution only few people will buy it. The same as comparably few people bought original expensive AppleTV.

         4. agreed. i don’t see how a great picture with an appletv built in is going to get people to pay premium prices!

         5. How about a stripped down iPod mini touch as a remote, full integration with mirroring of both the ipad and iPhone built in, removable transportable apple tv module and the remote can also act as a controller for games from the app store in addition to no glasses 3D. Samsung would charge $5000 for this. I think apple coul charge $2500 for a 60″ diagonal anv get 40% margin or $1200 for a 40″ diagonal. Not to mention integration of Lind and cell phone lines and face time integration. You naysayers are a little limited in your vision.

         6. Bizlaw, I don’t agree. Have you priced a serious designer TV lately? Go check out the prices on a Bang and Olufsen entry model. It is in the neighborhood of $6500 for a 40″, and that’s where they start. There are several other upper end brands and models that are similar that wouldn’t be there if there wasn’t a market.

            That said, I don’t expect for Apple to compete on that end of the market too much, but I don’t see them going for a spot next to Westinghouse in Wal-mart either. My guess would be in the normal range of premium TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer, etc….

            Now take that this is coming from Katy Huberty. Her track record is close to the worst of any analyst that follows Apple. Out of 35-40 she is usually in the bottom 5.

2. Where’s the value in that?
   It makes more sense for apple to provide the add on feature for tv manufacturers. Similar to Netflix capability.
   Have the card that apple use for the apple tv and allow manufacturers to install into their tvs. If apple charge cost for the card and software then it provides them a window into offering apple tv services. Add game capability using iOS apps and apple can begin to recognize revenue.
   I think the apple tv is great and will likely by a second one for the bedroom tv.

   Reply

3. Of all the stupid Apple rumors, this is the most fucking stupid rumor ever. Does anyone seriously believe Apple will go back to making items that are utterly orthogonal to their business model, especially in light of the last 10 years? Whatever this is, if it’s even real, it’s not a TV.

   Reply

   1. It’s from Katy Huberty – not exactly the brightest star in the anal-yst firmament.

      Apple will update the TV more frequently than I upgrade TVs – so for me, no sense building it in.

      Reply

   2. Not the most brilliant reaction of all the stupid reactions I’ve ever heard. Today we have many devices that have: a processor, ram, an OS and a monitor (phones, iPads and desktops). These devices are working together cohesively better than ever before and the one device that’s wholly outside this tech ecosystem is the TV. It should have a processor, ram and an OS and should be integrated. This is what many of us want and would greatly benefit from. With NFC poised to explode in 2012, the ability to move one’s media easily about these different network nodes will soon follow. It’s about options. I would love the option to use these devices like this to handle many of the different professional and personal tasks I execute daily. If you choose the option to not use the so-called TV device in such a manner, then choose not to. Dismissing it as stupid is to dismiss the users and their diversified methodologies as stupid. In other words, if you don’t want a TV from Apple then just don’t buy one. I would. And would benefit. As would others. And I am not stupid.

      Reply

      1. i beg to differ. No one is browsing the web from their couch on their primary HD TV. No one. It’s a boneheaded idea that refuses to die no matter how many WebTV analogues come and go. Apple made the web and all the services associated with the Internet a visceral, personal experience. That experience will not be served in any way, shape or form by pushing away from the user back to a distant device. What Apple can do for the living room it is already doing in the form of a device that can be attached to the cheapest or most expensive TV you can find. Your choice. And certainly that device can continue to evolve and become some kind of game center but guess what? They already had an AppleTV that was essentially a Mac under the hood and that got canned. Pretending there is utility in reviving that original Mac Mini like device attached to an actual TV is ridiculous. If Apple actually does start making an Apple branded, Apple manufactured TV that only differentiates itself from other TVs by having an AppleTV built in, you can take it as the surest sign that Steve Jobs and everyone at Apple has lost their fucking minds.

         Reply

4. Oh, god, please let Apple come out with a quality TV. My family and I have been fighting with our craptastic Samsung for forever, and we’re losing big time.

   Reply

   1. Westinghouse here – works great; no issues or complaints.

      Reply

5. “What’s the killer app? The killer app is…watching programs!”
   –Steve Jobs at Apple TV intro, 2012

   Reply

6. An Apple add on to a TV means that the user ends up with two remote controls, one of them will doubtless have dozens of silly buttons.

   If Apple made the whole TV, it would come with the sort of remote control that Apple thinks you should have and only that one remote will be needed to control that TV.

   For me, that’s the biggest advantage in Apple producing their own TV.

   Reply

7. Moritz reporting on Huberty, one nitwit reporting on another nitwit. This story couldn’t be more lame.

   Reply

   1. 😀

      Reply

8. snooze….

   This makes absolutely no sense to me. I seriously hope a full blown TV from apple is on the list of things Steve Jobs is happy that Apple never did or does.

   Reply

9. I’m hoping that Apple scales up and is thinking in terms of public spaces. I’d really like to see Apple negotiate super-flexible terms for use in public spaces, for example. Currently, legally playing a DVD or BluRay in a bar or restaurant or church or classroom or neighborhood film festival might incur exorbitant performance fees.

   Apple once interceded on behalf of consumer rights when they collaborated with MPEG in order to nurture the nascent home digital video market. Perhaps they might do similar by negotiating broad usage rights for non-ticketed public “performances”?

   I for one would love to beam something from my portable iOS or OS X device up to the big screen at my local pub. And after you buy me a pint, I’d be happy to check out what you have to Airplay, too!

   Reply

10. The article title here starts with “Analysts:” – that’s all you need to know about how accurate this is likely to be. 😉

    Reply

11. With Katy Huberty and Scott Moritz pimping Apple TV I know for sure it will never happen.

    Reply

12. As everyone before me had said and I can only repeat, this makes no sense except maybe to the analysts.

    Apple doesn’t hold many TV patents that I know of, doesn’t own TV factories, can’t introduce a radically newer design to the already settled hardware: it’s widescreen, and bigger, and flatter with greater refresh rates the better, done. OS on TV doesn’t isn’t all the important, because no one is crying to have it. TVs have their own brands and perceptions. People who believe in Sony colour won’t just ditch for Apple iTV (since TV exits already). Apple will have to bring something extra that competition can’t match and lowering prices will be ineffective. Apple can bring iOS or iTunes store, but those are like introducing complexity to a simple device (exact opposite position for Apple’s natural strategy) and reinventing the wheel that cable and satellite dish providers already equip users with.

    Besides, no one would like a TV set that will only rely on Apple while another branded TV will play Google’s. That’s suicidal and will fail. So, Apple can’t just lock users in with iTunes with their branded TV, particularly when they are still at the mercy of the content providers. Imagine you walking into an Apple Store and here’s the pitch: here we have Apple TV, you can play all the movies/shows you have on iTunes or iTunes store on the cloud; except for the times when content providers may not want to renew their partnership deals with us without raising additional charges. You may have to then switch back to your regular cable, hopefully briefly.

    Apple could enter new markets like cell phones because customers consider mobile sets as tech gizmos. Apple was an established brand in that regard already with both computers and iPods. But people don’t want TVs to be their computers with OS complexities, rather they look for absolute ease of use at the end of the day, with great picture quality. That’s a perception of TV that is now ingrained, subjective and tricky. You can’t just convince someone a certain TV is better if her mind is already set on some other brand for whatever reason. Apple can only lose and horrendously in this market of brand preconceptions.

    On top of all this, the TV business is not such that people just upgrade their TVs the same way they do their mobile phones, or computers even. Most folks I know keep their TVs for at least for half a decade if not longer before upgrading.

    Finally, currently as it stands, both TV and iPad are filling out all the gaps we have with the regular TVs, and they are wonderfully portable. Why would you then need to go manufacture something you know nothing about, and can’t generate better margins? Why enter a market only because someone said the market’s worth x-billions dollars. With that reasoning Apple should get into the car market as well as washing machines soon maybe.

    Reply

    1. A car manufactered by apple does sound really cool though.

       Reply

13. “The problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go to market strategy. The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set top box for free. So no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us… ask Google in a few months.”

    “So all you can do is ADD a box to the TV. You just end up with a table full of remotes, a cluster of boxes… and that’s what we have today. The only way that’s going to change is if you tear up the set top box, give it a new UI, and get it in front of consumers in a way they’re going to want it. The TV is going to lose in our eyes until there is a better go to market strategy… otherwise you’re just making another TiVo. [you can’t just partner with providers because] providers are local… it’s a Tower of Babel problem…”

    –Steve Jobs, June 2010

    (This means it’s a sure thing).

    Reply

14. I’m guessing margins are mighty slim on TV manufacturing. I’m further guessing that Apple can provide an on-screen interface the likes of which we haven’t seen yet. We’ll see.

    Reply

    1. Right on both counts. But it’s the slim TV margins which will keep Apple out of the market. Adding a built-in AppleTV just raises costs, and people won’t see the value to justify paying additional for it. They’ll just use Netflix through their Blu-Ray, or On Demand from DirecTV, etc. instead of AppleTV.

       Reply

    2. Yes, and If margins are “mighty slim” for TV manufacturing, it’s because the current players have made HDTVs into commodity products, just like with most Windows PCs and mobile phones. The primary purchase consideration for a typical HDTV, after screen specs, is price.

       And when you buy one, you can just tell that reducing manufacturing cost was the primary design consideration. It looks and feels cheap. The screen menu interface is an afterthought. The remote control is clunky.

       This is a market that is ripe for Apple to exploit. Apple can offer a complete TV with uniquely desirable features that no one else can easily copy. The built-in Apple TV will add $100 in perceived value to the price tag, while costing Apple only $50 in manufacturing cost. Using high-quality materials (plus Apple’s design style) will add $100 in perceived value, while costing Apple an additional $50 in manufacturing cost. Apple’s attention-to-detail (on things like screen interface and remote control), and just having the Apple logo on it, will add $100 in perceived value, while costing Apple nothing.

       And Apple will have 30% profit margin in a market where everyone else is barely breaking even, just like with PCs and mobile phones. The current Apple TV box probably has about 30% profit margin, but that means only $30 profit per unit. A $999 complete Apple TV, could easily make $300 profit per unit.

       Reply

15. In the early stages? These early stages have been around for at least 8 years if we believe all the analysts over the years. It may happen but these ‘experts’ seem to be basing it on a concept of their own rather than any evidence it is one of Apples.

    Reply

16. TVs suck. The Bravia’s are nice but their menus are byzantine, like every other TV. I think Apple wants to reinvent it. Why not offer an insanely thin TV, with a bright retina display, and, inside, THX surround speakers and integrated Apple TV. The remote? A simple Apple remote. No more 4 large, complex controllers on the table.

    TVs are currently as bad as cell phones were before the iPhone. From their packaging to their look and menu systems… features and functionality.

    Apple sees an opportunity here to give people a central living hub for all their iOS devices… and to integrate Apple TV right into the TV… they see that people… the Internet culture is a point and click… watch and search for what I want, when I want type of being. Netflix is the market validation.

    It’s just another value add onto their growing ecosystem. I can see a gorgeous design with an internal Apple TV and a simple remote.

    Reply

17. Lotta voices saying “It’s senseless.” As Rodney Dangerfield said in Caddyshack, “If they’re selling, buy!”

    Maybe Apple has a longer view, HomePortal, or something. IMAX for everyone.

    Take a deep breath; Steve’s been back up to the MotherShip, partying, and getting orders.

    Expect greatness.

    Reply

18. Simple. Put powerful hardware in it and let 3rd parties create awesome games that work either with dualshock-like controllers or iDevices. It’d be like the Wii U, but much better, and it would also sink the PS4 and Xbox 720. Taking out two markets at once!

    Reply

19. Apple shook up the cell phone industry, and the netbook industry … I look forward to seeing how they shake up the TV set industry.

    Reply

    1. I agree!

       Reply

20. The AppleTV next year will change the way TV shows, movies, and games are delivered to the living room. It will not just be a TV that hooks up to a cable feed; it will not be what people expect. It will go beyond Netflix, Hulu, and Xbox Live. iAds will play a role in it.

    Reply

21. Apple does a fantastic job on virtually everything they release. There is always more to what they release than anyone ever expects. I for one will be the first one in line for one of these.

    Reply

    1. Absolutely.
       The greatest thing, if it happens, is that there won’t be 45 different tvs to choose from. Apple will give us 3 or 4 options, and I will know that they have done all the deciding for me as to what a “perfect” tv needs to be.

       I am not being sarcastic either. I LIKE this about Apple. Great quality, great ideas, and great marketing.

       Reply

22. the average person has difficulty buying, hooking up and configuring their HDTV.

    Apple could easily disrupt the TV market, just like it did the cellphone market, by putting out an easy to use HDTV.

    The critics don’t see the value add and the opening here.

    Reply

23. Maybe Apple could offer the functionality of the AppleTV to the OEMs for $50? Or Airplay. Or an easy RemoteControl Wifi/Bluetooth sdk for iOS (since most new HDTVs now have wifi built-in.) Or combine all these things for an Apple DVR? Actually a receiver or vehicle entertainment center with a built-in AppleTV functionality would be pretty cool.

    But the Apple-branded HDTV idea by itself doesn’t make sense to me. This seems to be an area where simply licensing out Airplay or AppleTV functionality is a much better idea.

    Reply

24. Surely it will be part of the iCloud ecosystem.

    Reply

25. I was reading all these comments and realized that my 52″ Samsung is used as nothing more than a monitor. The TV programming is channeled in from an external box; the TV pipes in movies and stuff; sound is handled by Denon and Miller & Kreisler; DVD is external; X-Box for games. All the software in the Samsung TV is crap. There is room in this world for a TV with built cable decoder, hard drives/SSD for DVR, built in BluRay drive, 5.1 Dolby Digital output with amps to drive quality wireless speakers, iOS for running apps and killer front end software to control the experience. There are a lot of living rooms that would look a lot better without the stack of gear used to support home theater. Make it “good enough” and it might be good enough make me want to get rid of the 3.5′ tall stack of electronics and cabinetry and cabling in my living room.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.