“Before his death, Steve Jobs gave biographer Walter Isaacson his views on such a product: ‘I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use. It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud. It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it,'” Michael Comeau writes for Minyanville. “The phrase ‘I finally cracked it’ can’t be ignored — this thing is coming.”
Apple’s “entry into the television set market will actually be far easier than the company’s initial efforts in smartphones and tablets,” Comeau writes. “In fact, iTV will be the easiest money Apple’s ever made.”
“First of all, the TV market is huge, so there’s less uncertainty regarding potential market size than there was with smartphones and tablets when the iPhone and iPad were introduced,” Comeau writes. “Second, Apple has a ton of experience in making displays, including its popular Cinema models and the ones in its iMacs. So there’s no obvious technological hurdle. Surely Jonathan Ive can handle a TV tuner.”
“Third, the competition is just aching to be ripped apart,” Comeau writes. “And finally, unlike smartphones and 3G-enabled tablets, television sets do not require entanglements with telecom carriers.”
Much more in the full article here.
Can’t wait.
“And finally, unlike smartphones and 3G-enabled tablets, television sets do not require entanglements with telecom carriers.”
No. They have to deal with Content Creators (who never seem to get it) and Cable Companies (where most of us get our internet).
I can’t wait to see how they do it. Apple will eventually do it. And it will be brilliant. It will have to be.
Raise your hands, if you also think that iPads, that can transform (wirelessly) your existing HDTVs into an Apple touched/voiced commanded/App supported TV, is the iTV waiting in the wings for an update/upgrade next year.
iPad is the iTV? Not too many people would raise their hands on that one. The iPad will most definitely compliment the iTV in ways we cannot even imagine yet I’m sure. We know we want something different with our television experience. Once again we just need to wait and let Apple tell us what exactly that is. There’s no question it will change the way we view television.
You may not have “entanglements with telecom carriers” but you have entanglements with the cable/network/satellite providers.
And as soon as this comes out, we’ll all be screaming for a “headless” AppleTV.
I too am interested in what Apple comes up with. However, Apple will find itself again going against the discussion of what’s “good enough.” The rumor a couple of days ago was about a comparison to a 46″ Bose set costing $5,200.
Regardless of the “goodness” of the Apple set(s), assuming a range of sizes, that’s a lot of money-and far, far more than the vast majority of people can, or are even willing to pay for a set.
We hear the excuses all the time that a Dell or an HP computer was bought because it was $300-$500 “cheaper” than an Apple computer. So all of a sudden there’s going to be a run on Apple TVs priced up to $3,500 or more higher than other 46″ sets?
It’ll come down less to features than initial cost-is a seamless access to the internet/cloud/rental movie markets worth that differential? It isn’t to me.
As I said, most people are not going to see the difference, I don’t think. Wiindoze versus OS X? Sure, that difference is noticed, even if disregarded. An Apple-branded set versus Sony/Panasonic when most all sets have internet/ movie rental access now, with possibly a huge price difference? Maybe not.
I want to be open-minded, so maybe there are some very important points I’ve missed. If so, please share.
@ Jaundiced
Why do you assume the TV’s would be prices along the lines of MacBook Pro Pricing? Look at the iPad for example. It is competitively priced. As Apple introduced new products it has been attentive to pricing. Althought you may counter argue with the iPhone and it being subsidized. Apple wants to sell millions of these things, and their strategy would be to price them at a reasonable price for the product. Given the trend in the economy, there’s no way they would ignore the Bose disaster of a TV and price it high.
Check yo self!
I totally agree with you-your comments make perfect sense. I was only using the example based on the rumor. The mass market is a tough market, but as you said, “Apple wants to sell millions…”
One thing I learned years ago, but most “analysts” still haven’t learned is, don’t bet against Apple, and don’t think they haven’t figured out exactly where they need to price products.
I am VERY interested to see what comes out next year!
I bet it’s somewhere around $1500-$2000. They don’t need the ‘size’ issue to bog them down. One can get an internet TV from Costco for $500, if they want it. But people would pay 2k for a base model and upwards of 4k for the largest. Maybe the 2k would be a 40″?
It would require a small hard drive, ram internet connections etc, but the imac does that. Now they need to cross the size of the monitor with the iPad and call it a day. The costs are small. How much was the iPhone 4S to build? The 64gig cost about $250 (that’s just parts minus the monitor for the iTV) the cost of the screen is difficult to say, I can’t tell from online research. Maybe others can post it, but it should be around $600. So lets say the costs of the TV would be $800-$1200. I think apple could be satisfied with $800 profit on that device. They would be happy with only $300. The power is in Siri and iCloud. Now if they can have it sync with a time capsule and find all of the content on it, that would be something. I’m still not sure why the iPad can’t see the TimeCapsule and sync with it.
The problem with TV isn’t the TV. It’s the cable/sat carriers that pile on the crap and force bundling of channel you don’t want with channels you do want.
Just so long as my latest App due soon can run mega-sized, and with chest-crushingly loud surround-sound!
Fact 1: nobody knows what the pricing might be. Fact 2: nobody knows what features may be included. Fact 3. nobody know anything other than a telling quote from S. Jobs and some hints from some doubtful sources. Fact 4. I’m very curious as to how Apple will pull this off, IF it enters the TV manufacturing biz. What could $81 billion afford ?
Many people have purchased high def TVs within the last couple of years. Prices for new TVs are currently relatively cheap.The high end buyers will always get new better tech but the masses will not in this economy. If the new sets are 3D without glasses then Apple will dominate the high end market as usual. They will do very well.
I just don’t get it. What can the iTV do that an AppleTV couldn’t do with an App store update as well as opening up the USB port for a web cam with a mic?
My gut tells me this is not the way, just look at computers. Apple sells displays but not a full range knowing a lot of people will not want/need Apples own offering (like me, I need a non glossy display)
I think what is coming is a hardware update to the AppleTV, A5, along with a App store update and a peripheral device for audio and video input.
Just saying.
I agree. What good is surround sound limited to the screen itself? It’s not “surround”.
The TV market is crowded and very competitive. My cable company also supplies my internet so they still have control over my content. Apple’s will be great, no doubt, but it’s anticipated to be more expensive than the cloners’ in South Korea.
Why is an AppleTV better than iTV? Or a Mac Mini?
I think the idea is that the more devices and connections there are, the more confusing and therefore less attractive to consumers. Right now I have an LG flat panel with an AppleTV, surround sound receiver, PS3, VCR and DirecTV DVR connected to it. That’s roughly 40 miles of cable and a pretty solid working knowledge of A/V allowing me to keep them straight and use my five remotes without getting confused.
The new iTV would streamline that package for much easier out-of-box functionality, including seamless integration with the tremendously popular iPhone and iPad. That’s hugely attractive to tech lovers who aren’t particularly tech savvy, like my wife. She loves her iMac, her MacBook, her iPhone and our iPad, but she has no idea what’s going on behind our TV. For someone like her, an iTV would come out of the box, sync with her other devices and most likely simplify all the aforementioned connections. It will also, no doubt, be stylish, attractive and come with a user-interface with which she’s already familiar. Take all that into account and I think we’d pay $2000 for that TV over similarly-sized but less capable (and less Apple-like) $1000-1500 TV.
I think things are not going to happen as fast as we would like. One of the big problems that is just begging to be solved is the whole delivery of content.
iCloud is great but the rest of the TV experience sucks. People want to get away from expensive monthly bundled packages so they mash together a bunch of disparate services and no one solution does it all.
Today’s bundling of packages is like selling of albums – more people want to get away from them and just watch their favorite shows. Few people want to consume the entire contents of a single channel even.
So there needs to be a change in the way content is delivered and purchased to make it consumer centric rather than studio centric.
Why does Apple Have to mess with the providers to be successful ….no other TV mags do….they just need t.o provide a better TV…. Voice commands, integration with their ecosystem, easy setup and superior sound and picture…cable, satellite , etc content providers are you decision just like they are for your current tv….
That should have been mfgs not “mags”… Hate this auto correct on the iPad…hurts as much as helps…. Oh yeah…. Add built in video camera and mike for video chat….
LightSquared for Apple as ISP and the problem of carriers is solved.
I recently dropped my DirecTV account ($90/month). I had a long discussion with the customer service gal about things like a-la-carte channel selection and the fact that Apple was about to eat the lunch of the Cable and Satellite providers. Of course she wished me luck and tried to entice me with all kinds of offers. My solution is to watch what I want, when I want thanks to over-the-air broadcasts, Vuze, and my AppleTV! Of course I don’t like having to resort to Bit Torrent but after being screwed by DirecTV for so many years I don’t feel to bad as long as Apple has a totally legal solution to the problem coming soon.
It’s also possible Apple flips their traditional model on it’s head for the TV market.
Maybe they’ll end up “giving them away”, and make it up on “media” sales (in-app purchases, iTunes sales and some kind of all-you-can-watch streaming service). You just never know with Apple.
TV sizes & prices are stabilizing. And before flat screens many people kept their TVs for 10-20 years. That’s lots of time for a heavily subsidized model to work.
If they were “given away” by Apple, the entire industry’s resources would be immediately focused on the “software” (apps & content). And Apple would own the entire television market in one go.
Apple needs to bypass the cable/ satelite providers. How better to do that then to launch its own satelite which will work with Apple’s new iTV. It’s all the content management and just access to all the content that’s the trick. So Apple becomes a satelite provider and gains ALL the same content, provides a new tv which contains AppleTV and can record/ manage/ timeshift all your programs using Siri or another elegant iPad interface. iTunes will fit in there somehow.
Apple TV will hopefully give the customer the ability to to buy just the ten channels they watch, rather than the 263 channels they have to pay for now. Just like iTunes.
Plus the ability to talk to the TV using Siri. Just say what you want to see and/or record whatever you tell it to.
That sounds like brilliant idea, I think we should run Apple lol!
Big whoop. As long as I have top pay for bundled programming that I do not want I couldn’t
care less about the interface with the TV. Until and unless I can pay only for the programming I want and when I want it forget it.
It won’t improve the quality of the crap that’s broadcast though. Just make it easier to switch (swipe?) off.
The Apple TV has to pay homage to the past. It will NEED to have some legacy connections. People have too much invested in their other equipment, no way are they going to obsolete their collection of movies and such. Even the iPod had to rely on people ability to get their CD’s into the device (via a computer w/iTunes and ripping). It was not the paid songs that kept it afloat. It was the replacement of having to lug around all those cd’s.
No way I want a tv that won’t allow me to plug into local cable/tv antenna and tape/watch my shows FOR FREE vs the 1.99 to 2.99 per episode they charge in iTunes for 40 mins of programming. So you have to keep a coax input. Same goes for HDMI in for my PS3 and other devises.
But with that said, if they could add to that with a better interface, built in dvr function with a external USB port for extra storage. the ability to play ALL OF MY OWN media files, not just iTunes ones. Then they will have a winner.
Jobs was talking about leaking from the top.
Now he’s leaking from the grave.
I would love for Apple to make a television I for one would definitely purchase one, I think it’s only a matter of time before we see one. It is just a pity Steve Jobs will not be here to oversee see such a development, I actually think it will only be a matter of time before we see something like a stereo may be it could be called the iSound or iStereo! In my opinion as well I think calling a television iTv doesn’t sound right I think if they make such a product I think iVision sounds better!!