| ... They already assemble some imacs in the US.
Apple is unable or simply unwilling to compete on cost. They will never get far in the TV business for that reason alone. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Oh really? Their entire meteoric rise has been about offering products at premium prices that consumers want because they are compelling. Remember the iPhone which at its debut was widely scoffed at by the technorati? Why would you think they can't do the same things to TVs that they did to mobile phones? |
|
| said by MyDogHsFleas:Oh really? Their entire meteoric rise has been about offering products at premium prices that consumers want because they are compelling. Remember the iPhone which at its debut was widely scoffed at by the technorati? Why would you think they can't do the same things to TVs that they did to mobile phones?
Because mobile phones are subsidized. TV's are not. There is a reason Vizio is now the #1 TV supplier in the US. |
|
 tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:Oh really? ... Why would you think they can't do the same things to TVs that they did to mobile phones?
Hmm, maybe because they can't afford the law suits and won't pay jacked up prices that LG, Samsung, Sony and others will charge them in order to "borrow" those ideas. As "compelling" as you assume they are, Apple is no more innovative then Creative Labs. Now, when Apple starts building big screen TV's, cars and construction equipment and cures cancer, then we all can be impressed. Oh, and by the way, meteors don't rise so your use of meteoric doesn't apply unless you were implying Apple is falling  . I think apple should just stick with making MP3 players and MP3 players that can make phone calls. Heck, when the Handspring/Visor came out, it was very "meteoric and compelling" but it soon wore off.. just like the Apple craze so they are starting to enter a market that will give them a taste of what Microsoft is experiencing. People just don't care anymore. Just saying.  |
|
| reply to silbaco
Why does everyone assume this means they will produce a TV set? It's far more likely they'll leverage the AppleTV (or a like device) and score content deals.
The few they currently have has changed the way I watch TV. I pay about $30 for a season of a Discovery Channel show in 1080p HD. When a new show is ready, I receive an email and when I want to watch it, I turn on my AppleTV, am presented with my new show, click play, and it streams from the Internet. All in a tiny device that uses like 5W of power.
What their current model lacks is any real integration with their other products and no real vision for a family with multiple TVs. That's where they will innovate.
I doubt very seriously they're going to produce sets. |
|
| said by AnonFTW :Why does everyone assume this means they will produce a TV set? It's far more likely they'll leverage the AppleTV (or a like device) and score content deals.
The few they currently have has changed the way I watch TV. I pay about $30 for a season of a Discovery Channel show in 1080p HD. When a new show is ready, I receive an email and when I want to watch it, I turn on my AppleTV, am presented with my new show, click play, and it streams from the Internet. All in a tiny device that uses like 5W of power.
What their current model lacks is any real integration with their other products and no real vision for a family with multiple TVs. That's where they will innovate.
I doubt very seriously they're going to produce sets.
Producing the little AppleTV box that is many times the price of a Roku box is not going to win them long term success. As of right now, they have no streaming services to compete with Netflix and their purchase on-demand offering is being eaten by Amazon. They will have to add value to the hardware they produce, whether that hardware be AppleTV or a TV set, if they want to compete long term.
It is highly likely however that Apple will try to produce a TV set. They have made it clear they want to control all aspects within reason of the products they offer and make it as proprietary as humanly possible. The chances they will produce just an AppleTV box is very unlikely. |
|
|
|
 BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
I don't remember people scoffing at the iPhone. Most people thought it was the best thing ever. There were just a few people claiming that their Nokia phone was better and Helio claiming that they had cheaper competitive phones.
The iPad was scoffed at for just being a larger iPhone. |
|
BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA | reply to silbaco
Except that they often do compete well on cost, they just stick to the higher end.
The standard pricing for a new iPhone is the same as its competitors. How many years did it take for others to be able to offer a similar, competitive tablet below $500?
Do they sell crappy netbooks running atom processors? No, but if you're in the market for a computer that matches the specs of an iMac and want a 27" high resolution IPS display, the iMac is hard to beat. |
|
| reply to silbaco
Apple TV is $99. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Bootes
said by Bootes:I don't remember people scoffing at the iPhone. Most people thought it was the best thing ever. There were just a few people claiming that their Nokia phone was better and Helio claiming that they had cheaper competitive phones.
Here's an example. I definitely remember the technorati being quite negative about it. They made the mistake of just evaluating specs.
»chordsoflife.wordpress.com/2008/···hall-we/ |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:said by MyDogHsFleas:Oh really? Their entire meteoric rise has been about offering products at premium prices that consumers want because they are compelling. Remember the iPhone which at its debut was widely scoffed at by the technorati? Why would you think they can't do the same things to TVs that they did to mobile phones?
Because mobile phones are subsidized. TV's are not. There is a reason Vizio is now the #1 TV supplier in the US. Subsidized phones are only an issue in the USA, and the iPhone has been successful worldwide. It's simply how consumers in the USA are used to getting their phones, has nothing to do with why Apple was successful with the iPhone and why they will be successful at the Apple TV or STB or whatever it turns out to be. They are not stupid about pricing.
Also note that the subsidized business model is handled entirely by carriers, not by Apple. Apple gets their money up front when a consumer buys a subsidized phone. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to tc1uscg
tc1uscg:
a) what ideas do you think Apple will need to license from TV vendors? I can't think of any.
b) Creative Labs? I think you miss the point of Apple innovation. They are not about features and functionality, they are about integration, design, and ecosystem. They do just enough to keep up with the hardware specs and features list, but make it a package and ecosystem that is overall compelling to consumers.
c) »www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-met1.htm
d) Will the Apple Craze wear off? well I guess eventually all things change. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to AnonFTW
said by AnonFTW :Why does everyone assume this means they will produce a TV set? It's far more likely they'll leverage the AppleTV (or a like device) and score content deals.
This is the big open question. It'll be interesting to see what they actually do. Maybe both! |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to i2Fuzzy
..and a decent BluRay player with the same capabilities is around the same price.
..and the Roku is $20-30 cheaper.
So far, Apple is still Apple, overpriced and underspec'd.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | reply to MyDogHsFleas
A) You just don't re-broadcast TV without some kind of agreement unless it's public domain. Apple has deep pockets and if they are trying to make money on regurgitating airwaves, I see the people holding a license for that content and the content owners themselves will want part of that pie unless it's public domain and roku already provides that avenue (for free). I have 3 roku’s and I would like to continue to get what I do get for free. So, what can apple provide that isn't already there? What can be so innovative about hooking up a divice to your tv, plugging it into power, connecting to your WAN or LAN then start streaming free content or if you pay for the subscription, Vudu, Netflix, HBO, Hulu is at your figure tips? What irks me is they can produce something already on the market and people talk like life on another planet was discovered.
B) Really? Back when I got my 40gb creative labs zen, it got rave reviews. I still have it, it still works, and I use it more than my ipod touch 1st gen. I’m not filling the landfills with broken screens, or outdated-crippled devices. When I buy a drill, I don’t sit around and pay homage to it for being “cool”, innovative and eco-friendly. I just want it to do what it’s designed to do and do it well and every time a new drill bit comes out, I don’t need to “upgrade” my device to use it. Or when a new device comes out, I don’t have to replace my drill bits. Simple.
C) Like I said, the use of the word to describe Apple was incorrect IMO.
D) I don't say bad things about apple because I'm envious, jealous or that I’m wanting. To me, Apple is no more better at design, integration or even ecosystem then Jeep or Wal-Mart. Jeep because they are an example of a product that's been around for 70 years and no matter how unreliable consumer reports try to paint them, people still buy and rive them every day. (I own 2). Wal-Mart because of their innovative ways in the marketing and methods of giving it's consumers the same products at a lower price no matter what other companies or businesses’ they destroy in doing so, as long as they can maximize profits. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Nice response!
A). Oh you're talking about content licenses, I thought you meant design patents. Well of course content owners will get paid by Apple, that's my whole point about it not being the "broadcast industry".
I am curious what Roku gives you for free.
What Apple brings that CL etc. don't is the Apple ecosystem. People don't perceive a learning curve, it "works with my iPhone". People see the product because its Apple and there's buzz and TV ads. And they want it. First step to buy is being aware that it exists. I would bet you a consumer poll would show Roku and CL having low consumer awareness.
B). See above you are not the average consumer.
C). Whatever.
D). Sure. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | said by MyDogHsFleas:Nice response!
A). Oh you're talking about content licenses, I thought you meant design patents.
I am curious what Roku gives you for free.
What Apple brings that CL etc. don't is the Apple ecosystem. People don't perceive a learning curve, it "works with my iPhone". People see the product because its Apple and there's buzz and TV ads. And they want it. First step to buy is being aware that it exists. I would bet you a consumer poll would show Roku and CL having low consumer awareness.
B). See above you are not the average consumer.
C). Whatever.
D). Sure.
A) I can seem the money hungry MPAA/RIAA jumping on the same train telling Apple to pay up or shut up. It might be a "Shock and Awe" in the beginning, but I think the relationship will sour (no reference to sour apples) soon thereafter.
Roku is the gateway that provides content from IP based entertainment sources. No, I'm not a spokes person but to sum it up as a consumer, it's a little cable box that lets you "surf" the hundreds of channels (both free and subscription based) with no learning curve. You just plug it up, register it and hundreds of channels are there.
»www.thecontemplation.com/index.p···hannels/
Now, I did buy a subscription to Playon.tv and Playlater.tv that provides me with hundreds of tv shows from network and cable channels. Playlater just allows me to record said show to watch later. Now, remember, these boxes stream all this to your non-internet/WiFi tv in HD/SD (depends on the channel) Note the above link was from over a year ago so there are many more channels there now.
I also use Plex (free). It turns any PC on your network into a media server for the roku (or android phone). Not sure if there's a version for apple for not. But I'm sure there are dozens of FREE apps for apple devices that do the same thing. 
B). No, I disagree. I am an average consumer. Just not afraid to learn how stuff works to improve my experience. I pay for what I like and what works for my needs but skip what doesn't. I do tinker but in the end, it has to be simple for my stupid moments and everyone else in the house including 4 teens. I'm sure Apples stuff will be simple too but I would hardly call it innovation, ground breaking or anything to do with being 'eco'. When the android systems first came out, it was cool, now it's just, well, android. Guess my gripe is, Apple products won't do ANYTHING other devices available today can do and in my own experience, nor any better. No, apple will take it, make it bright and pretty so people will bow and pay homage to them for creating something revolutionary. (see creative labs )
C). Yep, we can go back and forth for weeks on this. 
D). Noted |
|
