back to article Apple TV demand may drive Samsung-sapping sales

The idea that Apple is working on some kind of smart TV refuses to die, the notion regularly refreshed by rumour and the occasional soundbite from senior company executives. CEO Tim Cook only last week expressed his “intense interest” in the evolution of the TV in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink interview with US TV channel NBC. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. dogged
    Stop

    A quick shareprice boost is all

    AAPL has sunk recently. Tim can't have that so a few quick interviews and nosetaps about some vapourware TV product is a cheap way to get idiot investors back on board and re-inflate that AAPL bubble.

    I don't believe Apple will make an actual TV set because of the issue of content provision. If it were to have a RF antenna socket, the consumer could watch free-to-air broadcast TV and not pay Apple for the privilege of doing so, which would surely be unthinkable.

    But likewise, there's no way to lock it down to a cable provider or satellite source because so many national regulators forbid this. Note, for example, the way Sky don't sell a telly that will only receive Sky.

    And TV-purely-via-internet is simply not yet viable due to bandwidth and QoS restraints.

    No, Apple won't be making a TV any time soon.

    1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

      Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      Was going to make a similar comment. The Apple TV is nothing more than a rumour right now, but I can't help thinking that the reporting that this rumour is getting has more to do with Apple's current share price than any new information.

      One indisputable fact is that AAPL has deflated sharply lately, but there are a lot of investors and funds who are long on the share. These people desperately need that share price to be way over today's $520 price when their option contracts mature. Analysts, who constantly peddle the upbeat news about Apple, and how "$900 is around the corner" (actual headline) are the most corrupt of them all. Sure, they mightn't personally hold the share they're pumping, but other parts of their employer do hold it.

      Apple remains a phenomenally successful company, regardless of its market cap, but the majority of that success has been driven by one product line, and that product relies on heavy subsidy by mobile operators. This is the key to Apple's huge margins: frighten the mobile operators into paying them. (The operators don't pay the full retail price, but they pay a lot more than the $99 that the customer sees).

      This game is about to unwind though, and it's not just because this is the first Holiday period with two competitors to Apple (GalaxyS3 and Nokia 920) both offering demonstrably superior products. The biggest factor may have gone unnoticed. In the USA, T-Mobile just agreed to carry iPhone... but: they also announced that they will no longer subsidise ANY handsets, and will instead lower their monthly tariffs. If this works, the other US operators will follow, and Apple's game will be up. They will be forced to either lose sales or cut prices.

    2. David Hicks
      Pint

      Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      The other thing that doesn't fit (IMHO) is that their fans seem to buy a new one of whatever it is every couple of years. TV doesn't really fit into that quick a cycle.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

        People love to portray Apple buyers as desperate to upgrade their kit every time a new model comes out - it couldn't be further from the reality I have observed. Typically the kit lasts longer or people keep / use it longer - I see plenty of iPhone 3GS (now over 4 years old) still un use as their main phone and tons of older (and well used) Macbooks / iMacs.

    3. Mark .

      Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      I agree - although note, it doesn't really matter if they released a TV that couldn't do what most TVs could do, and where Internet-only TV doesn't yet make sense for most people. They could still do it, and get all the praise for being "first" (never mind that Internet playing is pretty much standard on TVs, and the reason TVs aren't Internet only is because it doesn't make sense).

      It doesn't matter if initial sales are poor just like the first iphones, and it takes years to grow - people will still declare it an amazing success as long as it sells one million in 76 days, and ignore that it's only years later (and when they finally add in the functionality that other TVs have) that sales actually become mainstream. At which point, they can reap the profits, as well as being falsely credited for being first, or popularising something - even though any other company doing it now would be written off as a flop.

      You're right, it doesn't make sense - but with the RDF, these rules unfortunately don't apply.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      It depends what you mean by TV. If TV is redefined to not mean a real-time multicast system with multiple channels then lots of things are possible.

      It could be a more intelligent system like Tivo where you have preferences of shows you like.

      Half of an episode of each show could be pre-downloaded (overnight when bandwidth is more available) and the rest streamed in while you watch the program, thus avoiding buffering issues or delays to watch something.

      With video compression getting better all the time it may be possible to reduce size further.

      1. dogged

        Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

        @ac 13:28

        The issue here is still how Apple is going to gouge the consumer for every last bit of data they download. As marketing slogans go "Would you like to pay $1.98* per hour to watch TV instead of that nasty free stuff from the BBC that you already get?" will probably not fly except to all but the most indoctrinated of cultists.

        I agree that your proposal is workable but would like to point out that even TiVo needs seed data (your initial choices and what the box "notices" that you like to watch).

        They can't lock it hard enough. So it probably isn't going to happen. Until they can.

        *$1.98 is based on $0.99 for a half-hour TV show

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

          There is nothing FREE about the BBC it's something like £12 a month which makes Sky look pretty good value when they throw in free broadband and a recording Sky box. The issue is you essentially have no choice.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            License fee it to watch TV, it just happens to pay for the BBC

            "There is nothing FREE about the BBC it's something like £12 a month which makes Sky look pretty good value when they throw in free broadband and a recording Sky box. The issue is you essentially have no choice."

            Oh get real, the license fee may fund the BBC,but if there was no BBC there would still be a license fee (just look at the rest of Europe (you do know they have license fees too)) , so would you rather pay the license and get the BBC or pay the licence fee and get nothing for it, those are the only choices (you cannot be stupid enough to think the government would let you keep the money !!!!).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: License fee it to watch TV, it just happens to pay for the BBC

              Essentially the license fee is another TAX.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

            Sky? Good Value? Some mistake surely?

            You want TV in more than one room? Certainly Sir here's the invoice.

            You want HD TV? Certainly Sir, there's the invoice.

            You want useful on demand and a speed of more than 2mbps? Certainly Sir, here's the invoice.

            You want fibre? Certainly Sir, here's the invoice.

            You want to use more than two mobile devices. Sorry sir we don't allow that now, but if we ever do, there'll be an invoice.

            You don't want ad breaks every 10 minutes? Sorry sir we make a point of synching ad break times across the offering so you're stuck with them.

            Versus:

            8 FTA TV channels

            umpteen FTA local Radio Stations

            8 or 9 FTA National Radio Stations

            High quality reliable web presence.

            Free iPlayer

            Free Local news

            Free = inclusive and unlimited in that "huge" £12 monthly fee...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

              £12/month whether you use it or not = not fair.

              1. mrfill
                Mushroom

                Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

                I have no children but I have to pay for schools = not fair

                I have to pay for wars I dont want = not fair

                I have to pay for railway subsidies that get paid to shareholders even though I dont use trains = not fair

                Sky charge customers a fee well in excess of £12 and have the audacity to constantly interrupt the programming with adverts. They also do not provide 7 high quality radio channels with no adverts. = not fair

                I reckon that £12 a month for tv without adverts alone is worthwhile.

                When live F1 went to Sky I checked to see how much it would cost for the one channel in HD that I wanted would cost. £62.50/month was the answer. For one channel I thought that a bit steep especially as it was previously included in my £12/month.

                I also think that paying £10.8m to disgraced ex-editors of newspapers is also not fair.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

            At least the BBC occasionally makes a quality programme. SKY has to give away goodies to make up for its lack of interesting content and complete dross. £12 a month is also nowhere near the cost of a reasonable Sky package which is between £25 and £55 +£10 if you want HD etc.

            The reality is that you can download/stream everything you want these days via Netflix etc. there really is no reason to have a TV.

            So Apple could easily come into the fray, with a stripped down all-in-one designed with the viewing of TV content in mind. Without an RF it would avoid the BBC license fee as well.

            Of course it wouldn't suit those people that haven't got good inet connections, but hey Apple aren't in the market of pandering to the poor.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      Don't underestimate Apple - if anyone can make TV better it's them. Their share price drop is probably more about people selling to take capital gains in this year. At the current price AAPL look a bargain trading on a much better PE ratio than it's peers and strip out their cash 'mountain' and it's even better. Even if they just carried on making the same profits they would be a good investment IMHO.

    6. Lord Voldemortgage

      @dogged Re: A quick shareprice boost is all

      Tend to agree that this doesn't look like a sensible product for them but is there a danger of losing their grip on the app market?

      There are already plenty of Android TV boxes and if you are Samsung and have an existing investment in Android on the phone side then it might make sense to expand this into another division - if Android became the default option for smart TVs, with TVs still being the default point of interaction with these services for many households, would this be a problem for Apple?

  2. Stretch
    FAIL

    pay more just coz its from crapple?

    brainwashed 'tards

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: pay more just coz its from crapple?

      Pay more because they've spent time making it work well and putting a different more innovative interface on it. Not simply using what is already out there like Google did:

      "Google TV, Usability Not Included"

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18pogue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      It may not happen since content is what matter most. No point having a great interface and nothing to watch.

      1. Gerard Krupa

        Re: pay more just coz its from crapple?

        The Apple TV STB doesn't actually have that nice a user interface. Compared to, say, a WD TV Live or a Samsung of Panasonic connected TV it's a bit clunky. I have to wonder if people are fooled just because it's got lots of black and a sleek remote control with very few buttons. The Netflix app is a great benchmark since it exists on a lot of platforms and the Apple TV version is by far the most unhelpful one I've used, lacking simple things like automatically following on to the next episode instead requiring 4 or 5 button presses to get there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Apple TV UI

          If Apple was going to reinvent the TV, do you really think they'd let their competition know their great new UI idea by putting it on the Apple TV. The Apple TV STB isn't what Jobs was talking about when he said he "cracked it". It remains to be seen if his idea is a great one or not, but you can be sure the Apple TV is not representative of it.

      2. Philip Lewis
        Thumb Up

        Re: pay more just coz its from crapple?

        57 channels and nothing on -- The Boss

  3. Dave 126

    Lets say that you expect your TV to last five years... a £200 premium over an equivalent model works out as being £40 a year, sod it, lets call it £1 a week. What can you bring to your TV set that would justify the cost of a weekly Radio Times? (Hmm... would be interested in seeing whether the rise of EPGs has impacted the sales of dedicated television listings magazines... some people still like to hold the week's listings on paper, wielding a highlighter)

    1. Tom 35

      Not much chance of that

      It would have to be much more then £200.

      Current TV sellers are very low margin.

      They would have to buy the TV guts from one of the current companies, stick an Apple TV inside the box, and add the Apple margin. They are not going to start with a cheapo set so it's going to be more like a £1200 TV with a £400 premium. I don't think even Apple can make that sell.

      1. Tom Womack
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Not much chance of that

        I don't anticipate Apple releasing a TV until they can release a 3840x2160 Retina TV (that is, until Sharp has managed to scale up by a factor 1000 the production rate of the panels they're launching in February 2013).

        Being the only people offering convenient one-click access to quad-HD content - yes, this will require a fast Internet connection, a fair amount of in-TV storage, and special negotiation with content providers; the first is ubiquitous, the second straightforward, and the third the kind of thing that Apple is quite good at and in a unique position for - would seem the kind of unique selling point that Apple would like to have.

        I would pay $0.99 per half-hour for the BBC Wildlife Film Unit doing what it does best in quad-HD.

        1. Mark .

          Re: Not much chance of that

          "they can release a 3840x2160 Retina TV"

          You mean, 4K TV, which already exists in TVs today (Retina is just a marketing trademark, not an actual standard term for a resolution size).

          "Being the only people offering convenient one-click access to quad-HD content ... I would pay $0.99 per half-hour for the BBC Wildlife Film Unit doing what it does best in quad-HD."

          I would not be happy if the licence-payer funded BBC programs were only available for users of one company, thus locking out the majority of users who use other products, limiting competition in the market, and letting that company also have a 30% cut of the fee that customers pay. There was an uproar when iplayer "only" supported the 90% of Windows users, let alone this...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It will be Apple Priced

    Premier league footballers and Richard Branson need only apply

  5. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Holmes

    I have no interest in anything from Apple sitting on my TV. I already pay my local cable company too much for the privilege.

    Besides, major distributors will not want to lock their content into one platform (no matter how shiny) and that, NOT the hardware, is the reason for the delays for an "Apple TV". Major studios and TV networks want people to pay them directly so they get 100% of the revenues and not 30% by going through Apple. Netflix is the biggest provider out there today and their choices of films / TV shows is pretty dreadful because they cannot get distribution deals from the owners.

    Greed will limit the selection available on any platform.

    Sherlock, because it is elementary.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They did it with the music industry - if anyone can revolutionise TV (and it certainly needs doing / on demand) Apple can. Unless you are happy being a sheep and watching based on someone else's 'schedule' ??

      Baaa... baa...

      1. JEDIDIAH
        Linux

        Fanboy misses important details; more news at 11

        The music industry had an entirely different marketing model and did not already have entrenched encumbents that were complete vertical monopolies including distribution to the consumer.

        Someone else already brought up the problem of trying to sell Pay Per View to people that view the BBC as free.

  6. badger31
    Meh

    I can see them making this.

    And then selling/renting films and TV series through iTunes. My question is will they allow watching your own video collection via USB? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was no. You always get great stuff with Apple products, but there's too much stuff you don't get just because Apple choose no to let you have it(FLAC playback for iPods, for example). They just expect you to suck it up, and lots of people do.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    11% of main purchasers are very interested in buying a TV they know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about, so long as it's got the right badge? No wonder their extraordinarily average phones sell so well...

    1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

      That is quite scary, isn't it? Almost like a cult.

      Apple is a designer brand. Like those silly tags people keep on their trainers and whatever pattern's been patented this decade to go on scarves and bags. That's it. Everything else about Apple is pretty bog-standard stuff at extraordinary markups.

      And in the same way that I've never owned any of the designer junk (learned that at a young age when my best friend from school always had £80 trainers - which was a LOT of money - and tore them apart in minutes playing football, whereas my £10 cheapy-shop ones lasted several months at least), I can't see me ever owning an Apple product.

      A TV is really not the area to delve into. Spending on ordinary TV's is really curbed back later, and the amount of things you can do by just plugging in another box / software update / laptop into your current TV will make anything they can produce look like an overpriced empty box in comparison. Of course, some people will always buy them, but then some people pre-order £1000 bits of hardware already with no idea what they'll get.

      Hopefully, the iPhone 5 has started to teach people what happens when you just blindly splash money on a product before it's been out for a while. I have dealt with more people moving from iPhone to Android in the last 6 months than ever enquired to me about Apple products in the last few years (and I'm the local IT guy, which means that five dozen people all ask me the same questions about the same products minutes apart, especially near Christmas, just to make sure they are buying the right thing).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "That is quite scary, isn't it? Almost like a cult."

        What about the cult for people who have to make a comment on any little made up story about Apple.

        The Reg could run a story about the skid marks in Tim Cook's pants and the usual suspects would role out their opinions on how it's a sign of Apple's decline and then you'd get the inevitable jokes about them suing anybody who made a skid mark with rounded corners.

        No wonder they have an overly inflated opinion of themselves, everyone is continually talking about them.

        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

          The important question is... Re: AC 18:57

          ... how do you make a skid mark with right-angled corners?

          1. Andrew Williams

            Re: The important question is... AC 18:57

            Anything is possible in Wimbledon.

            1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

              @ Andrew Williams (Re: The important question is... AC 18:57)

              > Anything is possible in Wimbledon.

              Word of the street is the Swiss are so square that their skid marks are always mathematically-perfect rectangles.

    2. John Bailey
      Facepalm

      Not quite.

      11% of survey respondents said they were interested in doing some missionary work to the stats.

      Apple fanboys, when presented with an Apple product will talk it up no end. Despite having absolutely no use what so ever for it.

      It mentioned an Apple something, so maximum positive response hat on.

      It has to be a bargain. A thing of this amazing quality for this price.. Only twice what one would normally pay for a standalone unit as a plug in module that kind of works on an iThingy.

      I saw people who had only the vaguest idea what an oscilloscope is, defend an over priced USB scope that was so low sensitivity, that it was near useless, trying desperately to compare it with several grand state of the art units that practically serve pizza to the user while they are working.

      I actually saw them trying to use the stock "but this is an <insert thing> for ordinary people, not geeks". canned response. FOR AN OSCILLOSCOPE!!!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They'll make this...

    And then sue everyone who dared or dares to make a better one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They'll make this...

      "They'll make this...

      And then sue everyone who dared or dares to make a better one."

      Too late.......

  9. Dan Paul
    Devil

    Samsung Smart TV

    Samsung has always recognized that their TV's can offer a set-top box experience and to keep that updated, are now offering upgrade chips that will add real hardware based features to the TV. Given that newer TV's REQUIRE all the electronics of a computer, this is a very logical extension of their (and others ) hardware. I can't say how much they are charging but this is a an interesting design.

    Only the Apple-ites will believe that they need to buy a seperate box that provides the same capabilities that the very TV or console that they are using, already has.

    Look at the other set-top box & console vendors out there and you will see that they have almost no market share compared to conventional cable or satellite feeds. 98% of the "smart" functionality can be had in a media pc or game console.

    I actually hope they put alot of time, money and resources into it so they fall flat on the nose.

    1. Philip Lewis
      Holmes

      Re: Samsung Smart TV

      "...2now offering upgrade chips"

      Last time I looked at the top line Samsung kit, the upgrades of the SmartTV software were just downloaded from the internet connection. This is how they intend to fix all sorts of firmware issues and push other SmartTV functionality.

      I don't recall seeing any upgrade chips available.

      1. Dan Paul
        Devil

        Re: Samsung Smart TV

        Philip,

        You are correct about the firmware via internet but they have something new coming.

        Please look at the bottom of this Samsung webpage for the upcoming upgrade chip capability from Samsung:

        http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-smart-tv/

        They are calling it their "Evolution Kit" and as described it will provide a HARDWARE upgrade path for their TV's.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Samsung Smart TV

      Existing 'smart' TVs are pretty poo - I've got a pretty recent Samsung and compared to an Apple TV box it's poo.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmmm

    Let's see now. Buy an expensive Apple TV, or buy any other TV with an HDMI input, and plug in a $50 Android dongle with an HDMI plug, WiFi and Bluetooth. Then download games and HD movies from Google Play Store. Attach controller or keyboard/mouse over Bluetooth or WiFi as appropriate. Replace dongle when something better comes along. Choices, choices.

    1. Tom 35

      Re: Hmmm

      Even if you are an Apple nut, buy the current Apple TV box and a nice TV. Next year buy the NEW Apple TV box and keep your TV. Repeat for the next 10 years.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm

        I can't wait for the early adopters to get in there stupid effing queues, squeal all the way home and then fail to be able to connect any of their other stuff whilst I attach yet another device to my LG TV which has more options round the back than a rohypnodate.

        BRplayers, PS3s, WiiUs if you like, other STBs, my new OUYA when it arrives - I can't see Apple playing nicely with these. I think they will stick to the STB route too.

        On smart tvs in general, since attaching the Xbox I've never used any of the smartTV features cos the xbox gives me a load of great stuff. SkyTV, BBC/C4/C5 catch up and I can easily flip to Netflix or Lovefilm or Xbox Video because I am open to choose which to use.

        BE AWARE: Frequently exploiting too many options round the back can often lead to problems with STBs.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      Or buy a standard TV and plug in an Apple TV box for about £85-90...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm

        But... But... But... You CAN'T just but a standard TV and plug in an Apple TV box.

        You NEED to get a REAL Apple TV because, well, it'll be alumin(i)um and stuff and have an Apple logo on the front!

    3. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: Hmmm

      > buy any other TV with an HDMI input, and plug in a $50 Android dongle

      Or a $35 Raspberry Pi...

  11. Mark .

    I'm not sure what the point of this speculation is - yes, if any multinational company with billions of dollars entered a new market, then after several years and vast amounts of advertising, it would gain some reasonable share, and make money. But that's true of any such company (same with Samsung, LG, etc) or any market (TVs, cars, fridge-freezers). And it still has to be weighed up with what other things the company could do with those resources.

    Yes, I'm sure that lots of people say they might think about buying some new TV, but that would be true of any smart TV. I considered buying a Samsung TV - just as I also considered a Panasonic TV, an LG TV, and so on, but ultimately I didn't buy one from Samsung or Panasonic, as I had to choose one.

    I'm really not looking forward to the unfair vast amounts of media hype and free advertising they'll get if they do release one, whilst the smart TV offerings already here today (as well as platforms like Google TV) go almost entirely ignored by the press. We'll have to put up with morons saying how Apple revolutionised TV, or "popularised" smart TV (even though smart TV functionality is *standard* on all non-dirt-cheap HD TVs these days). Yet the reality for actual smart TV owners like myself will be that even if the likes of LG and Samsung remain more popular, we'll no longer be able to get online support for our TVs, because they'll only cater for the minority of Apple users. (Even now in phones, with Android at 75%, and iphone never having been number one or anywhere near it, I still see plenty of companies only advertising apps for the minority of iphone users - in 2005, you could get apps that worked on any phone.)

    Jobs is dead - please dear media, stop hyping what just one company does.

  12. zb

    Cool

    I never realised that Apple had invented the TV

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cool

      Who said they had.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cool

        Who said they had.

        Apple's lawyers in 2018

  13. Sil

    What could Apple bring to the table?

    I really Wonder what Apple could bring to the table except for marketing and design (but won't people get bored with round corners and silver color)?

    Apple has no know-how or terchnology to offer for tv set. The whole success of Apple of late has been built on touch and TVs won't be used in the same way as an iPad or an iPhone.

    Apple has no manufacturing facilities and would almost surely have to purchase screeens from arch-rival Samsung if it sold tvs by the tens of millions.

    And the experience so far is that smart tvs aren't doing that well and their consumers mostly use them as "dumb tvs".

    As for me a better market for Apple would be a settop box + Wireless keyboard + Wireless gamepad done right with internet access, pvr functionalities and games which would directly compete with PS3, Xbox and generec settop boxes. This could partially cannibalize the iPad market though.

    1. Sil

      Apple TV's unique selling proposition

      Apple TV: the only tv with ios Maps©®

    2. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

      If I knew what Apple could bring to the table, my bank account would have a much larger balance in it than it does.

      What I can do is outline some of the problems with TVs at the moment that need to be solved.

      The main problem is the vast collection of remote controls and their associated buttons that you need to control the TV and all the other stuff attached to it. Apple would definitely sort that out by reducing the number of buttons you have to chose between to get the thing to do what you want.

      The second big problem is the confusing array of different user interfaces you have to deal with, depending on where you are. Apple would make that much more consistent.

      In terms of features, I would expect an Apple TV to have fewer features than other TVs, but this may not be a bad thing if you can actually use the features it does have.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

        "The main problem is the vast collection of remote controls and their associated buttons that you need to control the TV and all the other stuff attached to it. Apple would definitely sort that out by reducing the number of buttons you have to chose between to get the thing to do what you want.

        The second big problem is the confusing array of different user interfaces you have to deal with, depending on where you are. Apple would make that much more consistent.

        In terms of features, I would expect an Apple TV to have fewer features than other TVs, but this may not be a bad thing if you can actually use the features it does have."

        W O W! and you wonder why Appleites have a poor reputation! Thanks for that demo.

        1) Remote controls? WTF are you whittering on about woman?

        2) Apple will make "confusing interfaces" more consistent? Bollox, what channel up/down to confusing for applites?

        3) Useability of features? EH? Can you not read? If you don't understand, I'm sure a Apple/Fisher Price UI will help the halfwits.

        What utter crap you spout.

        1. jonathanb Silver badge

          Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

          To take one example: Channel up/down works in the live TV section. It doesn't generally let you switch between BBC 1 and BBC 2 in the iPlayer app. For that, you have a different set of buttons to press.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

            "To take one example: Channel up/down works in the live TV section. It doesn't generally let you switch between BBC 1 and BBC 2 in the iPlayer app. For that, you have a different set of buttons to press."

            Never! Whoda thunk it. Your blind devotion to Apple is scary.

      2. Mark .

        Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

        "What I can do is outline some of the problems with TVs at the moment that need to be solved."

        Great. Nothing to do with Apple though, anymore than it is with Microsoft or Hoover or Debenhams or anyone else who doesn't make TVs.

        "The main problem is the vast collection of remote controls and their associated buttons that you need to control the TV and all the other stuff attached to it."

        LG Smart TVs have a remote with hardly any buttons. Already solved.

        "The second big problem is the confusing array of different user interfaces you have to deal with, depending on where you are."

        Not sure what you mean?

        "Apple would definitely sort that out ... Apple would make that much more consistent."

        It's the "They are better than the competition" argument, based on products that *don't even exist*.

        No reason to think that Apple would do anything for the second problem you list, since all the applications on their products can have different UIs too. Even for the first, a touchscreen actually allows UIs to have more buttons etc (just that they're in software, rather than physical) - indeed, that's the good thing about them. But they certainly don't reduce the number things to press. My experience is that older less computer-experienced people prefer to stick with phones with a physical keypad, as it's easy and simple, compared with the multitude of UIs in a touchscreen device. Similarly my parents found the aforementioned LG remote confusing because they didn't like clicking icons, and prefer to stick with a traditional remote with all the buttons on it.

        As for your bank balance, probably not - ideas are cheap, it's building the products, bringing them to market, and marketing, that's all the difficulty. You couldn't make money just by thinking up the idea (nor would it stop anyone from later patenting it, based on recent events...)

    3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: apple TV Manufacturing

      They don't at the moment but there is a TV Maker looking for a wad of cash and that is Sharp.

      Apple could walk in and buy them outright.

      Then the picture looks a whole lot different

      Paris because even she knows a good deal when it is offered,

    4. Philip Lewis
      Coat

      Re: What could Apple bring to the table?

      Have you ever sat in front of a Smart TV and tried to use it? Really, the SmartTV world could use a new take on user interface, because what we have is from Asian manufacturers who have a good grip on the hardware, and some of them even have a good grip on aesthetics (Samsung's new range springs to mind), however the software is fucking awful.

      As for the idea Apple would be somehow forced to source their screens from Samsung, well that's the sort of demented analysis I am used to from the commentards here. I mean, really? You think Samsung is the only flat screen manufacturer on the planet?

      Time to watch some mindless drivel on TV instead of reading it here

  14. BigAndos

    If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...

    I can't imagine an Apple TV would offer any actual new features beyond those available on Smart TVs already available from the likes of Samsung et al or even just plugging your laptop into an HDMI port. What they might be able to do is improve the user experience for such devices.

    There was a good article on El Reg a month or so ago bemoaning the awful interfaces on Smart TVs. If Apple came along and redefined the UI like they did with, say, first gen iPhone vs Blackberry, then they might be able to make some waves.

    1. Mark .

      Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...

      I'm still waiting to hear what this amazing whole new UI was, that others than supposedly copied. At a fundamental level, my Android works like my old Symbian. And my old Symbian is the obvious touch-extension from the way my 2005 feature phone worked (touch on icon rather than click with button on icon). There are things like multitouch and bounceback, but these are just additional touches. By far the biggest advantage comes from having a touchscreen at all. And by far the biggest thing that made touchscreens more usable was having larger (~4.5") screens. (First generation iphone wasn't a smartphone btw, couldn't run apps.)

      You also play the classic vaporware trick, where you assert that a product *that doesn't even exist* will be better than what's available. It's impossible to argue against. I might as well say, I wish there was a new Amiga TV, because it'll be better than the current rubbish, I just don't know how.

      (I don't find TV UIs that bad - you're basically limited when you just have an infra red remote. LG TV have a bluetooth pointer that works better, but it's still a bit difficult to use, again that's a problem that will apply to any TV that's controlled from your sofa. Perhaps the best would be to have a mirrored application control on a phone/tablet/laptop, but then LG already offer this. Other possibilities would be voice control, again you already get that on some TVs.)

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...

        The UI isn't just about what input device you use.

        If you are looking in the Live TV section, you have a particular screen layout and buttons to press if you want to do something.

        Go to the iPlayer app, and you will find that the screen layout, and the buttons to press to perform similar tasks is completely different.

        Go to the place where you find live TV shows that you recorded earlier, and everything is different again.

        If your TV has ITV Player that is probably a completely different interface again.

        Youview integrates the Live and On-Demand TV services. Maybe that is an improvement. I haven't seen one in action yet, so I can't pass judgement.

        1. Mark .

          Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...

          Well sure, but I don't see how that relates to what the OP said - every iphone app has different UIs too. (Indeed, it used to be the case that mobiles would use the common standard UI of a web browser, but now we have every site having to have its own different "app".)

          I agree it would be good to have some open standard where by online video services came through a common protocol. No reason to think that Apple would do that though.

          Also note that Smart TVs already *do* offer this for local streaming. The people saying "Just use HDMI on a TV" have the problem that every device they connect to to play has its own different interface. But when I stream to the smart TV, it doesn't matter what kind or make of device I use (PC, tablet, phone, network hard disk, connected USB hard disk or media player; Linux, Windows, Android, etc), it all comes through the same standard UI on the TV. If anything, based on historical precedence, Apple would be worse here - they're likely to tie it in with itunes.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...

        Mark, sprouting your usual bullshit.

        "First generation iphone wasn't a smartphone btw, couldn't run apps."

        I just checked. Yep, mine is definitely running apps.

        You are one of The Reg's reular peddlers of rarified bullshit and I do wish you would pull your tiny dick in and go away.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

    1568 surveyed = 13m sales? Sorry but peoples decisions don't scale that nicely. All you can conclude from that survey is that 11% of the people they asked would go and buy one, ask a different 1568 people and get a totally different result.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Do the survey in an Apple store

      OMG!!!!! Survey shows that 100% of people will rush out to buy one, this will be the biggest selling thing EVER!!!!!

    3. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

      I suggest you study sampling theory. If you double the number of people you survey, it doesn't increase the accuracy of the results by much. That sample size is sufficient to give you a 3% margin of error, provided the sample was selected properly. Short of asking absolutely everyone, you aren't going to get much more accurate results than that.

  16. TheCorrector666

    This is all hype to stop the fall in share values. Even if Apple did product a TV, to base a massive growth potential on an 11% " sample " of US citizens out of sample of around 1500 people is reality distortion running flat out. The markets are awash with smart TV's and the prices are dropping. On the content side, numerous cable and sat companies have this sown up and and by the time it comes to the UK, with import tax and VAT, you are looking ta a retail price of around £2k. You can just see all the ques outside the Apple store in Regent Street fighting to be the first to get an Apple TV can't you?....hahahaha. Of course the other thing is that they cant call it an " iTV " in the UK because that name is already in use. What this shows is just how desperate Apple and the share holders are to boost the share value. Especially as some of the Apple execs are cashing in their own shares now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Clearly it's nothing to do with the recent drop in share price as they have been talking about an Apple TV for years when the share price has probably increased 100-200%.

  17. Sir Codington
    Unhappy

    Why?

    Why would I need ANY sort of smart features on my tv? Just cut down the price, give me HDMI and I'll plug in my own hardware thanks. A PS3 for netflix / ease of use or a raspberry pi for a highly configurable media center is far cheaper with a TV with all this stuff built in. At the very least give us an option to put android/linux on there.

    Thanks, but no thanks!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why?

      That's 'cause you are a geek (no disrespect) - most normal people do not setup raspberry pi's as highly configurable media centres.

  18. vic 4

    interested indeed in owning an Apple-branded television

    Now that sums up a lot of Apple's average consumers, they are interested in the brand. I personally grew out of that when I had to start buying my own trainers and couldn't justify the extra expense that the latest release from the current label in vogue cost.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't buy an apple tv but it's going to have to have some good features over what I currently have and expect to have in the future from the same setup. I'll defer until I've seen some specs.

  19. JimGinhio

    iTV/ITV?

    Should the UK's ITV channels start prepping their solicitors for the inevitable copyright war?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: iTV/ITV?

      And Spain's garages... ITV is the Spanish equivalent of the UK's MOT (vehicle inspection test).

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    definition of dickhead

    iTV

    iMAC

    iPhone

    iPod

    iPad

    BAD ENOUGH........

    4X4

    Facebook profile

    Twitter profile

    Linked-in profile

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: definition of dickhead

      Unemployed? Bitter? Thought so.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: definition of dickhead

        "Unemployed? Bitter? Thought so."

        No, not at all. Shows how much you know. And thats very little, obviously!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: definition of dickhead

          Just jealous then. Ever heard of free choice...

          1. vic 4

            Re: Ever heard of free choice

            Sure have, and you have less free choice with what you do with apple products than you do with others. Plus, the article just demonstrates how much the average apple customer exerts their freedom of choice.

      2. Doogie1
        Joke

        Re: definition of dickhead

        "Unemployed?"

        Dude. He's a barista.

  21. Gil Grissum
    FAIL

    Vaporware

    It's just not going to happen. The Cable and Satellite networks don't need Apple to gain subscribers, and after seeing how Apple worked the record companies and cell phone networks, they aren't going to play ball with Apple and give Cook any form of control or "lock in deals". Comcast in particularly, isn't going to play ball with Cook. Jobs couldn't inspire any of the TV networks to play ball. Cook has less mojo than jobs, so he can't accomplish this. Chinese TV OEMs aren't going to want to cannibalize sales of their own TV's just to make pennies on the dollar from Apple. The only vendor who's got "intense interest" in the proposition of an Apple branded TV set, is Apple. While some consumers may be interested in an over price/under featured LCD TV that is two years behind competitors in features and technology, the economy in Europe is in dire straights, so it's not going to sell in droves over there. The American economy isn't much better, so while some might claim interest, there's not going to be any standing in line for days waiting for an Apple TV. It's just not going to happen. Analysts bring this up to help raise Apple's stock price, which has been floundering recently. Cook brought this up for pretty much the same reason. Apple can't continue their momentum with two years behind everyone else technology. The trance is wearing off and vaporware products aren't going to change that.

    1. vic 4

      Re: Vaporware

      Don't know much about the tv industry but most of what you says sounds right. Just one point, I doubt apple would release a tv that is lacking in features for a first effort, sure after a few models they will start to slide. If they do then the writing is definitely on the wall for them

    2. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: Vaporware

      Maybe you could cut the networks out of the loop altogether?

      News and sporting events benefit from being live, and I suppose things like The X-Factor benefit from being live as well, at least after the audition and judges house stages. For everything else, you probably want to watch a program rather than a channel, so maybe you could subscribe to a vodcast for the likes of Eastenders.

      Of course it is worth bearing in mind that lots of people have tried to make money out of broadcasting English premier league football, and only Rupert Murdoch has succeeded, but still, I definitely don't think current smart TVs reach anything like their full potential.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vaporware

      " While some consumers may be interested in an over price/under featured LCD TV that is two years behind competitors in features and technology"

      What a puerile rant. Another Apple hater pretending to have a brain.

  22. xyz Silver badge
    FAIL

    I'll bet it comes with a 4:3 aspect ratio 'cos Steve said that was best!!

    Oh and remote controls with rounded edges...whatever next!

  23. Peter 48
    Stop

    why would they bother?

    I could imagine Apple releasing a TV set, but it would be primarily targeted at the Bang&Oulfson or Loewe Crowd, who are willing to pay a significant premium for aesthetics.But this would simply be as a token, much like the 8series for BMW or the GT for Ford. Going after the mass market would be utterly pointless. The margins would be way too small without the benefit of making more money back on the content than they could with a settop box. This is a cut-throat market where profits are made from minuscule margins which has led to several old school TV manufacturers to leave the game. As for this survey, saying you would buy something and actually doing so is a big difference. I would be surprised if 1/10th of the people claiming they would buy an Apple TV would actually do so.

  24. JaitcH
    Unhappy

    Have you ever seen the trashland they call satellite TV?

    In many countries Foreign services are delivered via satellite television, usually guarded by less than effective encryption - the keycard updates are downloadable for a small donation to a card pirate.

    Overnight airtime goes for as little as USD$100 per hour, which is why infomercials and religious nuts fill the airwaves. Do people really want to invest in high-end TV receivers to watch this? The commercial cable TV systems are losing business.

    Satellite TV channels in the USA pour pour pure video trash down from the skies. Much of it is duplicated on competing channels. I Love Lucy, circa October 1951 to May1957, can still be seen on the air. That's when Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men, a BBC television series, were in their heyday, circa 1952-1954.

    We have no TV sets in my house, yes, we can see TV programming on computer monitors but my daughter has to make a choice - computer or TV.

    Quite honestly, I think people will spend money on more interactive pursuits other than waving their arms around in front of a Samsung TV set.

  25. Tim Parker

    Price

    "Let’s say Apple prices its TV at $999, a nice, round number of the kind favoured by Apple."

    I would wager they would favour a significantly higher (yet equally round) number.

    1. cortland
      Devil

      Re: Price

      Turn it over.

      666.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Could Apple actually follow their normal business model in that there would be regular updates? Sure, there are new TV's released every single year, but people are not buying a new TV set to get a few new features.

    Going with the original iPhone, would the first iTV be SD only?

    Would stations need to be in the app store to watch them?

    Would it have proprietary connectors in that only devices that pay Apple a royalty fee to sue the connector can be used?

    Remote control optional but you can buy an app to use an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad as one?

    If you don't buy a subscription you see iAds.

    You can buy items direct from the iTV but Apple gets a 30%

    Maybe they will have the best of Billy May's.

    They will integrate what you are watching with FaceBook. Just becareful with porn. ;)

    Everything you post on Facebook or Twitter will say; watched on my iTV.

  27. h3

    Panasonic's DNLA stuff is great (Plays anything other than direct from Windows 8 Modern UI) . Cannot see why anybody would want something so restricted like an Apple TV would be.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Because it WORKS - DLNA works with this but not that and then that but not something else... roll the dice.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We had walkmans before Apple made the iPod popular and now we can buy music track by track rather than whole singles or albums.

    We had crapper phones before the iPhone - now we have much better smart phones.

    We had crap tablets before the iPad - now we have a range of good tablets.

    We have crap TVs delivering on a schedule (how quaint) - things like HDD recorders are just a stop-gap before we get proper on-demand TV and what we do have is pretty 'poor' - so surely it can be done better?

  29. mIRCat
    Paris Hilton

    Baa

    11% lemmings. That is all

  30. Bananimal

    Pointless vapourware is pointless

    Why the long thread.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eyetv

    An Apple TV set could be interesting if it bundled Eyetv as the PVR component and had sufficient hardware to make it a pleasant, smooth experience to operate unlike every other smart TV / set top box out there.

    An iTunes viewer appliance, which is the much more likely scenario, is significantly less appealing.

  32. Dan Paul
    Devil

    Smart TV Specs

    Has anyone seen what some of these Smart TV's have inside for processors? I was just looking at a commercial Samsung and it had a dual core Athlon X2 w/ 1 gig ram and 1 gig flash and ran embedded Windows XP. Won't be long before we need an antivirus solution for our TV's!

  33. cortland

    Cook, consumers keenly interested in iTelly

    Here now; they've got a patent on ROME?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like