Seriously Apple. People Don't change their TV's Yearly.

[Aldaris]

It is easier for apple to infiltrate the family room with a $99 iOS device than a $1000+ television set. As well as a lot more feasible for a regular upgrade/update cycle for consumers.

Furthermore, why on earth do we need a retina tv? there is no content for consumers at such a resolution, and apple just within the last year started to support 1080p for iTunes content... I don't think that is on the horizon yet.

 

[Irishman]

Yeah I'm pretty excited about the rumors of apple launching a "retina display/Siri/iTunes integrated/whatever else tv" And yeah I'll probably go out and get it. I currently own an HP Branded 32'' tv. And it's like from 2005, and it works like a charm, it was built by sharp.

I don't believe one needs to research to know that people don't just go out changing their tv's every year like most people do with their ipods/ipads/even macbooks/ and everything apple for that matter.

So what do you think Apple's plan for the TV business is? Somewhat like the Mac Pro?( and by that I mean it's the least they seem to care about when it comes to updating ) I mean people screw their Tv's to walls, do whole room changes to hook it up, it even feels like a pain just talking about it...

So.. Yearly change or maybe 2-3 years refresh?

Thoughts >>>

I don't see Apple selling an HDTV with things as they are.

 

[macs4nw]

It is easier for apple to infiltrate the family room with a $99 iOS device than a $1000+ television set. As well as a lot more feasible for a regular upgrade/update cycle for consumers.

Agreed. I too believe that the rumored Apple TV will be an add-on to existing tv's with the accent being on content delivery and the user experience. There is a lot of room for improvement in those areas. It just makes a lot more sense. Maybe the future will prove me wrong.

 

[sperry1988]

I highly doubt Apple is going to release a "Retina" TV. If they release a TV it will most likely be 1440p, which they may consider "Retina"

 

[steve-p]

I don't upgrade because I have no need. I make 6 figures, don't own a car and rent an apartment. I have plenty of disposable income but I'd like to retire by 50 to travel the world and that is a better use of my money than new computers every year. Priorities.

Renting somewhere to live is probably not the best use of your money though. It's not going to get you something you can rent out while travelling, or sell to fund it. I do respect your position apart from that though. I also spent a period of time keeping costs down with one goal: owning my house outright as early as possible, which I had achieved by 35. Since then, almost all my income is disposable. Life is much different with no rent or mortgage to pay. So I do update my Apple gear regularly nowadays even though I don't really need to. I have actually updated the main TV twice in the last three years, too. I'm still not particularly interested in an Apple branded TV set however. Apple TV as a separate box that you can add to any TV works better for me.

 

[xlii]

Why would they? In recent times the only incentive to buying a new TV was largely size or adding a second unit.

With the advent of so called Smart TV now there's a wider feature-set that users may be accustomed to and 3 years will make a big difference in the "smart" capabilities of the TV.

Instead of buying a new TV to keep up with the "Smart" improvements you can buy a box to connect to your HDTV via hdmi. Many blu ray players now come with Apps and a USB bus you can use to connect an external disk drive. Plus both the Apple TV and the Roku (which I own) add functionality to older or less expensive HDTVs.

 

[P4G]

As a consumer I agree, I am much happier keeping my AppleTV separate from my TV and having them on different life cycles. But isn't the problem for Apple that someday Samsung (and other tv manufacturers) make the Apps on their tv good enough to replace the AppleTV. That will mean that 1) Apple will start to lose iTunes tv revenue and 2) will take away some of the unique advantages of the iPhone over Android phones.

So it may be that Apple has to do this as a defensive ploy to protect their revenue streams...

 

[iMacFarlane]

Come on, tell the truth: if Apple makes a toilet, you and I are upgrading it every year.

The iFlush. It'll be their #2 seller.

 

[dgalvan123]

. . .Since I just bought the Sony, and it's state of the art smart etc. I just couldn't justify the new Apple offering for at least a year.

Avoiding the first version of a new product is probably a good idea anyway.

The first iPhone was very nice, but it didn't have GPS or 3G. And the price point was way too high and was adjusted down by $200 (33% of the original $600 price!) within two months.

Since Apple has a business model (at least within the last 10 years) of being a game-changer and introducing what turn out to be revolutionary products (whether they deserve to be or not), I always wait for the next version of the hardware before jumping in so they can work out all the bugs. Kudos to you who are early-adopters for taking the risk, which I am unwilling to do. You are the ones who prove to Apple there is a reason to make a version 2.

 

[dgalvan123]

. . .But isn't the problem for Apple that someday Samsung (and other tv manufacturers) make the Apps on their tv good enough to replace the AppleTV. That will mean that 1) Apple will start to lose iTunes tv revenue and 2) will take away some of the unique advantages of the iPhone over Android phones.

So it may be that Apple has to do this as a defensive ploy to protect their revenue streams...

This.

Apple has several options:
1. Sell the Apple TV software pre-installed on hardware TVs, partnering with a TV manufacturer like Samsung, Sony, LG, or whoever. Knowing Apple they'd probably negotiate with the partner such that they would brand the entire unit as an Apple product, even though Apple doesn't make the TV hardware itself, just the software. Upgrades to the software would be available via online-download.
2. Partner with a satellite content company like Dish or DirecTV to bundle Apple TV set top boxes (or "DishDVR's with Apple TV software") with their service, since satellite services are national).
3. Keep selling Apple TV set top boxes at low cost without partnering with everyone, and keep calling it a "hobby". This allows them to keep researching the ideal solution, while not allowing themselves to be compared to other TV content providers because Apple can claim they "are just hobbyists".

At the All Things Digital seminar a couple years ago, Steve Jobs talked about the challenges of Apple moving into the TV business, saying that the content providers (Cable companies) had produced a "Balkanized" landscape. That is, the cable companies had monopolies in different geographical regions. When asked by an audience member if Apple could partner with a content provider to sell Apple TVs (set top boxes or television sets) at a subsidized rate (like Apple did with the iPhone by partnering with AT&T). Jobs responded that there was no TV content provider that was nation-wide. (That's not completely true: while cable districts are indeed balkanized, DirectTV and Dish Network have nationwide coverage. Apple could potentially partner with one of them and get nationwide availability.)

Also, those companies typically offer DVR set-top boxes for small monthly fees, making it less attractive for a consumer to purchase a premium set-top box. (That is, if you're already paying for cable TV, and they offer you a DVR box for $5/month, it doesn't make much sense for you to buy a premium DVR box like Tivo for $100+ because it will be 20+ months before you recoup your costs, and by then the technology you bought may be obsolete anyway.)

So, if Apple wants to play in the TV content/hardware business, they indeed need to come up with some way to bundle their product ("content":the iTunes Store, "hardware": Apple TV set top box functionality including AirPlay and Home Sharing) in a way that it will make sense for consumers to buy it.

Personally, I have a 37 inch 1080p Sharp TV in my living room that is ~6 years old. I also have a 27 inch Sharp CRT in my bedroom, which is ~12 years old. I have Apple TV's hooked up to both of them. I do enjoy not having the Apple TV functionality built into the TV set, but on the other hand if Apple does put out an integrated set in the next couple years, I may grab one for my living room, move my 37 inch into the bedroom, and get rid of the 27 inch CRT.

 

[Death-T]

Hopefully Apple doesn't become too involved with the TV industry. If they were making TVs 10 years ago they probably would have tried to patent High-Def. My small Apple TV-media box does everything I need it to--I'll let Sony, Samsung, et al make my TVs.