“Apple CEO Tim Cook didn’t come out and say it, but top Apple analyst Gene Munster thinks his message was loud and clear,” Lee Brodie reports for CNBC. “‘If you’re in the market for a new TV, hold off. Apple has a new product coming and it’s going to be hot.'”
“That essentially Munster’s interpretation of commentary made by CEO Tim Cook who actually said technology for televisions was of ‘intense interest,'” Brodie reports. “‘The message that I think Tim Cook intended to send was don’t buy a TV, we’re working on something,’ [Munster said].”
Brodie reports, “Munster has done other proprietary research and he’s all but certain a new Apple TV is coming– it’s just a matter of when. ‘They could announce a new Apple TV as soon as December,’ he says.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Gene’s doubled down on the “Apple television” so many times now, we lost count of how much he’s in for.
Gene, Gene, Gene, you poor, misguided slut…
Apple will be taking on the giants who already build their displays for all their products? No doubt that the Apple disciples will consider it but at what costs if the tv is simply a rehash of what already exists in this very competitive market. As it stands, unless there are significant changes on how the cable and satellite industries are governed, the best Apple can do is up the anty a bit by building in Apple TV in the tv set proper and play along the same way Samsung does with their Smart TV. App based channel selection is not going to happen overnight and rest assured that this option will be headed up by the carriers and NOT the gadget makers.
The same was said about iTunes. “The record companies will never buy in. You could never change their business model. They will never trust consumers. This won’t happen overnight!”
I didn’t happen overnight. But it happened. And looking back, it feels like it was overnight, or at least a lot faster than I ever imagined.
Big cable, like any business which intends to survive, will adapt to follow the money. Apple is the one company that can change the way cable/satellite do business.
Sorry, but you cannot for a minute suggest that somehow Apple has that much influence in the world? This is not a sci fi movie…. This is real life and while iTunes did appear to have benefits for Artits back in the day, today in insight Artists are rebelling and litigation is underway in several jurisdiction around the world challenging the Apple control over their rights.
You’re ignorant. Artists would be rebelling against the record companies not iTunes. iTunes is just a distribution model that helps keep people who appreciate music and willing to pay for it accessible as an audience to any artist that makes their product available via iTunes. iTunes saved the industry and staves off piracy. There’s not much one can do about cheap, unappreciative, android-loving-always-wanting-everything-for-free-occupiers like yourself from stealing music.
No one is suing Apple for infringing on their distribution rights: Apple is not a record label and has not signed any artists to any distribution deals. Apple distributes what the record companies have in their catalogues. If any infringement is being done, it is a record company misrepresenting to Apple that it has the right to distribute digital downloads, or the artist doesn’t feel he/she is getting enough money from iTunes sales.
Apple has HUGE influence in the world. Virtually all celebrities, sports stars, etc. use iPhones and iPads. They also want their music, movies, etc. on those devices. Plus, Apple has a proven distribution model.
The real challenge for Apple is showing how the content providers can not only continue to make the same money, but actually make more money over their existing cable/satellite contracts. There limited use for commercials in movies/TV downloads, but unfortunately the industry is built on ad revenue, so that either has to be replaced or supplemented somehow.
not at all. Artists love iTunes…labels are another matter
The cable TV industry is in roughly the same shape as the mobile phone industry before the release of the iPhone. Lots of money being made, but lots of dissatisfied customers.
Watched a TED talk last night, and it quoted Pres. Eisenhower as once having said, “If you can’t solve a problem, make it bigger.”
Only Apple apparently has the ability to step back, see the bigger picture, and come up with an elegant solution to a situation where user’s interests have been ignored for years. Even though I just bought a replacement TV set a few weeks ago, I can’t wait to see what Apple has up its sleeves.
Apple is only of interest to people who can afford their alleged better products. Breakdown any of their products and it is all the same as anone else but they as a example use aluminium a lot which gives them a right of way to charge ridiculous prices for something that is just a good molded in plastic but performs just as well. I own an MBA 13 while it looks good it certainly does not outperform the high end PC ultra books which sell at a significantly lower price.
All this to say, that there is no genius to Apple but rather just good Karma since 2007 or so which affords them the opportunity to bleed us of our hard earned money based on subjective value propositions which appeals those of us who can afford it.
Apple’s “alleged” better products? No genius to Apple, but just “good Karma” (sic)?
You’re either a troll, or just ignorant. Either way, what are you doing on an Apple news site?
Apple’s products are often demonstrably superior. If not design attributes and build quality (aluminum unibody, LED backlit display), or innovative features (MagSafe connector, multi-touch, back-lit keyboard), then certainly in terms of ownership experience, reliability, and total cost of ownership. This is borne out year after year of Apple coming out well ahead of everybody else in customer satisfaction.
Of course, that fact that you’re concerned about some “high end PC ultra book” and that some of them outperform a MacBook Air for a significantly lower price, indicates you’ve already missed the point entirely.
It is the software silly. Apple is a total user experience and not just the cost of the pieces. A Porsche has wheels and doors and seats etc just like other cars for much less and some of them go as fast but . . . somehow there is a difference.
Keep you Kia and your Dell and live in happy ignorance. You don’t seem to get the Apple experience.
Even a topical search discloses Apple enjoys superior customer satisfaction. Unless you believe they’re all being fooled, a pretty cynical belief, the products ARE BETTER.
Here’s an example:
http://allthingsd.com/20110909/apple-iphone-owns-j-d-powers-satisfaction-crown/
Pat, that’s utter BS. Apple’s products are made significantly better than its competition, both software and hardware. Apple’s iPhone sells at the same or lower price than a plastic-bodied Android phone, unless of course you find a BOGO deal (of course, that means two 2-year contracts).
There will be no branded standalone television set.
No apple tv ,not now ,not ever .there is $0 profit except in very expensive sets ,also one does not replace a tv every year .
They’ll do fine. I’ll be first in line for iTV.
One does not replace a computer every year either, yet Apple makes Macs… But that’s irrelevant.
There is “$0 profit” in TVs because most of the existing HDTV products are mostly indistinguishable dumb monitors that connect to a cable box. The only way for companies to compete in that market is by offering the lowest possible price, and that’s why there is very little profit overall.
The same could be said for the PC market or mobile phone market; if you make mostly indistinguishable “commodity” products, you will be competing based on lowest price, and you will make very little overall profit. But in those markets, Apple found ways to offer highly desirable products that the competition cannot duplicate. And Apple ends up making most of the available profit in those markets with a fraction of total unit sales.
How much MORE perfect can the TV market be for Apple? Apple just needs the “hook” that makes the “iTV” uniquely desirable (and I’m sure they already have it figured out). People who think Apple will NOT do a complete TV are imagining an HDTV with an integrated Apple TV box. That’s not what Apple will do, because if that’s all Apple had for iTV, I agree that Apple will not do it. The REAL product will be much more than an HDTV with an Apple logo, just as iPhone is much more than a “smartphone.”
HOLY KEN1W,
0 profit ? – One could have said the same about phones. As most phones were 0 down on a 3 year contract. But Apple changed that didn’t they.
There are smart, wifi ready, internet capable televisions available now. Priced, very high and others as low as an iMac. So i disagree with you here. The monitor type on iMac is already of better quality then most TVs out there. Also the iMac resolution is much higher than these large 30 to 40 inch TVs.
Factor in, a Retina iMac/TV could in fact do some serious damage here to the market. I don’t see any retina movies yet… LOL, and although Cook doesn’t see convergence as a motive it is evidently coming.
Ahhhh – sorry ken1w – actually i think we do agree
Yes… Just because the current TV makers can’t make very much profit per TV sale (on average), that ABSOLUTELY does NOT mean Apple can’t make iPad-like profit with iPad-like sales, on its complete TV product. Just look at the Mac and iPhone, in their respective markets, for proof.
As for “convergence,” it don’t agree (if you’re saying there will be some type of TV/iMac combo product). There are at least two reason why it’s unlikely…
An iPhone is “retina” at 326 pixels per inch (PPI). An iPad is deemed “retina” at 264 PPI. That’s because the user typically holds an iPad further away from eyes, compared to iPhone, so the pixels can be a bit larger and still have the same “retina” effect. Macs are typically used even further away from the user’s eyes, so a Retina Display for a Mac will probably be in the 200 to 260 PPI range (higher for MacBooks and lower for iMacs).
An HDTV is typically viewed from 5 to 6 feet away (or more), from across a room. For 1080p (1920×1080) on a 40 to 50 -inch screen (at TV viewing distance), it is already “retina.” The retina effect is the human eye not being able to distinguish individual pixels on a screen at typical viewing distance. Therefore, going higher than 1920×1080 on an HDTV screen is wasted effort (unless you are talking about some humongous screen that takes up the whole wall). It would make the product more expensive for no perceivable benefit.
Secondly, the primary function of a TV is to play content. Most “HD” content is currently 1080p or 720p. Apple is pushing the limits of what is practically “streamable” by offering 1080p content. Content will no doubt go beyond 1080p at some point, but that’s not happening in the next five years, or maybe even ten years. So again, offering a product that is a TV with higher screen resolution than 1920×1080 is wasted effort.
Article should read “Don’t buy a TiVo, Roku, Google Tv or any other media streaming device.” Don’t see Apple making the whole tv, just a combo cable box/streaming media replacement with tons more features and capabilities.
I see Apple making a television, along with an updated Apple TV for other television brands.
No one outside of Apple fanatics wants an Apple branded television . . . not yet.
Just like it took a few years for the iPhone to really get rolling, so will it be with an Apple television. And all of the slavish copiers like Samsung will make similar products and then there will be fanboys saying that Apple didn’t do anything all that special even though their new televisions will look a lot like what Apple does and little like what they have today.
It’s called a cycle, and I’ve seen it with computers, music players, phones and tablets. I think I’ll see it again with tv’s.
Well, too late for me. Or maybe not. Two weeks ago, unable to find anything better (and not inclined to make buying decisions on what *might* some day be available), I bought a S*****g LFD (Large Format Display) – a 46″ commercial class display. Big mistake! Even with the four picture modes and myriad calibration adjustments, I never could get a satisfactory picture. I’m working on sending it back.
Actually, sounds like it may not be too late for you!
Of all the brands, why pray an f—ing Samsung?
You bought a S*****g?!?!? Why would you do that when there are perfectly good VIZIO’s out there. And they are headquartered but (not manufactured) in the USA.
Oops, I shouldn’t assume everyone here is from the US.
Doesn’t matter, S*****g will be changing their entire TV lineup once Apple comes out with there TV. 😉
Facetime, Wifi, game center, iPads and iPhone/ iPod touch as remote controls plus unique Touch Screen on set, Apple TV, iTunes, Apps, iCloud. BOOM!!! Chakalka BOOM! Who let the dogs out..whoof woof . ITV is not just a super cool looking display. It is the center of the family home. While others may provide parts the end product will be Apple through and through and then we will constantly hear oh Shole has an iTV killer coming out”it has a slot for expansion or some BS that the iTV doesn’t. Based on recent history Apple will begin to eat its competition. This helps to get stock past 800$ by late next year. IMO
Gene Munster has been bleating about an Apple TV ready for imminent release for at least the last four or five years. Even a a stopped clock is right twice a day.
You know how many times people predicted an Apple phone?
It finally did come out, and it WAS worth waiting for.
We also thought the cell phone was a saturated market with not much left to innovate. Why would Apple waist their time with that?
Now everyone knows TV’s are a saturated market with not much left to innovate. Why would Apple waist their time with that? 😉