Apple threw its TV out the window after years of research: report Apple spent ten years working on a television, but gave up last year after deciding it couldn't devise something that would crack the competitive market. So says The Wall Street Journal, which found folks familiar with the effort to explain that Cupertino tried to use tellies for video calls, to no avail. Does The Journal …
"Either the letter is a load of bullshit to talk up the price of the shares or the tool has made public trade secrets on Apples future plans."
He's just another greedy parasite who doesn't care long term about whatever company he's invested in - he just wants a fat dividend cheque and he'll use whatever dubious but legal methods he can to ensure that.
"He's just another greedy parasite who doesn't care long term"
If people like Icahn had their way in the first place, Apple would never have become the company it is today; it would almost certainly have been asset stripped during its 90s doldrums era and exist today as little more than a brand bought up by some unrelated company.
Not that I particularly like to defend Apple or Jobs- I'm not a fan of a lot of what they did- but they were undeniably hugely successful, and that appears to have been by *not* pandering to the mentality of investors like Icahn, having a clear vision of where they were going and being willing to take decisions for the long term. (*)
Icahn is the antithesis of everything Apple did to become successful, and if they start letting him dictate the products and direction of the company- something Jobs would never have tolerated- we'll know Apple's "glory days" are truly over.
(*) Example; the iPod was at its commercial peak around the time the iPhone launched. Apple must have known that the iPhone would ultimately lead to the hugely-profitable iPod's decline, yet they went ahead with it anyway. Who can argue in hindsight that it wasn't the right decision? At some point- albeit later rather than sooner- someone else probably would have come up with a smartphone or similar device, so Apple ate their own lunch rather than having someone else do it and moved into a new market.
Yet ask yourself how many other companies would have had the guts to do that in the face of their shareholders and vested interests within the company itself, even if it was in their long term interests? Very few, I suspect.
I should not worry, I worked for a company whose shares were at about £14, then everyone said how they should soon be at £20 if not a lot higher. The next thing that happened was that they were closer to 20 pence. I am NOT saying that will happen to Apple, I am saying that too many pundits are worth less than an ant's spit.
Once the original shareholding has been sold, are new shareholders really investors, or more equivalent to parasites riding their host and trying to suck out it's life?
Ok, an increase in shareprice may have some benefit to a company, but if I buy shares in company A, what benefit does that accrue to the company. Presumably they don't get a cut of that money?
well, that's a good question and complicated that they may be the same individual i.e an employee, may also be a shareholder and a customer.
But let's assume the majority of the shareholders are not employees, just people who are using the shares as an investment. They don't in any way contribute to the success of the company, instead ride on the company coat tails. In fact you could argue they can reduce the success of a company by indulging in short term speculation which results in a lack of long term strategic thinking from the company involved, for example paying large dividends to maintain the share price rather than investing in R&D, infrastructure or retaining key employees.
"That's because TVs with rounded corners are so 1980s"
I wish some aspects of 1980s TVs would come back - like switching a TV on and there is instant sound followed a few seconds later by a picture after the CRT has warmed up. Instead of like now, having to wait for the damn thing to boot its pointlessly bloated OS which then gazes at its electronic naval for 10 seconds before it'll deign to do anything useful.
Ah, the perfect time to bitch about my Samsung again.
It switches on and comes alive within a reasonable period to be fair but...
It can take 15 seconds for the input selector to display the sources available, like I want the PVR list instead of PC display.
Have the temerity to switch it off when displaying PVR files and next time it is switched on it displays the PVR files alphabetically instead of date order.
Worst UI ever!
There isn't that much that Apple or anyone else can add to a good TV panel to add value to it, especially if users are just going to plug in a Roku, games console, Apple TV, HTPC or satellite receiver etc anyway.
Apple would never be able to duplicate the functionality of all those boxes into one TV set, and there isn't any compelling reason why any UI-input device (microphone, camera or a Kinect-like sensor etc) should be built into the TV set either.
There is a reason why a Samsung TV looks much the same as a Sony or LG. A couple ofbrandcs have tried to differentiate their TVs - Phillips with AmbiLight, Bang and Olufsen with a massive speaker and fancy material finishes - but that hasn't earned them large market share.
Apple do have a 2010 patent on a laser-powered display that is transparent when turned off, but it consumed too much power and the picture quality was low.
A TV set that could be rolled up like a projector screen might be a fine thing, but one would expect that sort of tech to come from LG or Samsung - the people who actually make the panels.
Ichan, just fuck off. If you want cash just sell your Apple stock!
Meanwhile if an Apple television would more-or-less be a TV with an (DRM-infested tied-down) Apple TV in it, then I don't think we've lost anything. I may have a fair few Apple products, but I drew the line at the Apple TV as the latest version only seems to like playing media from/via iTunes. I like my media to be platform independant thanks. Also Apple can never quite figure out if they're bothered about Apple TV or not, which does not give me the consumer a warm fuzzy feeling.
They'll be competing with Monsanto in genetically modified grains by the end of the decade, mark my words (then forget them): iSpray - proprietary solution to keep down bugs and lock in farmers. Will replicate to neighboring farmers to result in added licensing fees.
Similarly will develop a portable nuclear power plant, iNuke. No user maintainable parts inside, known for great power life, uranium pellets only available at AppleStore.
Focused on 2025, Apple will launch its own basketball team guaranteed to make a huge profit, though whether it's a good team or not will be the subject of much bickering, since the team will only play in its own special league rather than those icky publicly viewed matches.
So says The Wall Street Journal, which found folks familiar with the effort to explain that Cupertino tried to use tellies for video calls, to no avail.
Ughh you mean Skype? Damn that pesky business with prior art, though I'm sure (CR)Apple would find a way to say they invented that concept, and successfully sue MicroSoft into the ground. Which actually come to think of it... WOULD BE A GOOD THING!
Hey, when you (not necessarily Michael Habel but some weird little freak) went on your downvote spree - seriously, a link supplied in response to somebody asking where to find a TV show? There is no hope for you. Go back to Call of Duty - you missed this one.
You're welcome.
Loser.
So, it's not that Icahn actually knows what Apple is working on for the future. This was a letter to Cook "suggesting" what Apple should produce in order to make Apple and thereby, it's shareholders, more money. Outstanding. Icahn should stick to what he's good at, which clearly is not running Apple. Cook is of course, going to ignore him.
Is part of the issue regarding Apple TV that TVs might be headed down the path of the MP3 player (iPod) and standalone GPS?
Right now TVs are trying to become "smart TVs" by adding internet connectivity and Netflix and Facebook apps, but will that keep them in contention against more versatile computers, tablets, and phones? A dumb display that can interface with those other devices should be sufficient.
Which would explain Apple's perspective. Apple doesn't do dumb hardware (very commoditized, low-margin hardware) when it can find a way to bill you for content and subscriptions...but its "Apple TV" box top flopped in the TV content field.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
