An Apple Television set could cost you nothing

“I believe you can detect traces of what might make an Apple television a truly distinctive – and distinctively Apple – proposition in the arrival and gradual device-creep of Apple’s HomeKit system,” John Archer writes for Forbes. “But now I’ve also started to see a potential solution to the seemingly more intractable pricing issue. Namely that Apple could be planning to launch the world’s first television given away to consumers – or at least heavily subsidised – on the back of a contract-based business model.”

“The idea of an expensive Apple product doing explosively well on the back of a contract sales model is, of course, hardly new [see:iPhone],” Archer writes. “Intriguing though this scenario sounds, however, there’s a pretty major problem with it: the sort of subscription broadcasting platforms that currently give away or subsidise hardware in return for a minimum period of viewer subscription are definitely not Apple’s friends… Cue a much simpler and more direct solution: Apple itself sets up the subscription-based content service/package through which it could subsidise its home-grown TV hardware.”

“If an Apple TV is designed from the ground up to work optimally with the new sort of TV distribution model I’ve been talking about in this article, then it truly could deliver just the sort of game-changing interface and experience that’s become Apple’s trademark,” Archer writes. “All doubtless wrapped up in some deeply glamorous aesthetic design and potentially able to run your entire electronic household via the HomeKit system.”

Much more in the full article here.

10 Comments

    1. Whatever drugs they give Mr. Archer to write useless click bait trash like that, they should share them. It’s sad to see Forbes get so desperate that they rely on fiction instead of reporting. There was once a time when Forbes mattered. No longer. And garbage like Mr. Archer’s article is evidence of how far Forbes has fallen.

  1. Actually, I think this is a great notion. If they can get to retina-level screen and the usual great, great design, even if they could sell if for around $500 with the contract, I think that’d be a super winner.

    1. Content providers don’t want this because they know most customers would elect to receive 6 stations or less. Providers don’t like the idea of eliminating all those consumers for 100 stations people don’t watch as they want the revenue.

      That is the bugaboo. Maybe Apple solves it.

  2. Subsidize the Apple TV, like iPhone is subsidized. Good idea. It would be the “angle” that allows the long-rumored complete Apple TV to be released, and beat the generic “dumb” HDTVs (with the same display specs) in up-front cost. It does not need to be “free” (the top iPhone model has an up-front cost). The Apple TV box can be the “free” option.

    But Apple creating its own TV content service…? If Apple wanted to go that route, and turn the existing TV content providers (who are often also the customers’ Internet service providers) into enemies, I think Apple would have done that already, with the existing Apple TV box.

    A better option would be to work with the TV content providers, who already have all the content deals in place, and have THEM subsidize Apple TV in exchange for a “two-year” contract. And let THEM compete with each other over content deals. Content delivered over Internet, instead of cable (Comcast), satellite (DirecTV), or “phone” line (AT&T U-verse), through a custom app on Apple TV.

  3. If this concept can be applied to specifically packages of access to media over the Internet, then that would be interesting.

    But if he’s attempting to say Apple would get in bed with the nasty old cable TV companies, forget it! Poor me would NEVER buy / contract such a TV. I cut the cable and am not going back.

Add Your Feedback

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