Apple To Start Making TVs? 313
timothy writes "Apple might want to sell you your next TV,' says this CNN report. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that Apple's razors-and-blades, vertical-marketplace model for iTunes (and the various iDevices) doesn't make as much sense with the world of TV, where your Sony, Samsung, or (egads!) Westinghouse set is just as happy with a Google TV box, or a Roku, or one of many other media devices, as it is with an Apple TV attached."
But Microsoft can't bundle a browser?!?!?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
How would bundling a TV with AppleTV and iTunes NOT be anti-competitive?
If Apple made a TV today. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because of "consumer demand" it:
1) won't support HDCP sources
2) won't have a VGA input, because, hey, it's a TV
3) would be a CRT
4) would be only an HD Ready tv (720p), with 1080i scheduled for next year, and 1080p for the year later (only in the 60hz frequency, and not the 24hz one).
5) would only work with airport-enabled stereo systems for audio output
6) would only play back video from thunderbolt-enabled cameras
7) would refuse to play porn movies even if legitimately bought by the users, because appletvs are for all the family
8) there would be no remote, it's a free app on itunes for iphone 5
9) would only have a single button: the "on" switch (mind you, it turns only on the tv)
10) would only give you fox news, and would refuse to show MSNBC
11) would refuse to work with usb pendrives because it's everything on the cloud
12) would require the user to use a set of apple-branded eyeballs
Makes sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
This ranks up there with some of the stupidest Apple articles I have seen.
Rarely interact with your TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people rarely "interact" with their TV the same way that they rarely interact with their cell phones and mustic players. Note the shift from the prevailing view not all that long ago of "I don't want all these features, I just want to make a damned phone call" to wanting the latest iPhone or Android. Ditto with music players.
These days, when people watch TV, they want to schedule recordings, pause, play, rewind, watch two shows at once with picture in a picture, have a stock ticker running while they watch a comedy, stream video sources, stream audio over the internet while they play a video game, make phone calls, etc. Turning what essentially a dumb disply into a smart device capable of doing that is the next logical step.
So the market that would be targetted is not the existing market of people buying an Apple set top box. Rather, it's people looking for new TVs and, if the rumors are true, the strategy is to get a sizeable portion of that market to buy one that has Apple's iOS built into it. I think that's a reasonable strategy. The biggest obstacle seems to me to not be the market itself but barriers to entry for varioius services. Cable companies hate cable-ready TVs. They absolutely loved the advent of digital TV where they could start encrypting the signal and requiring a set top box in every room. Apple is going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to convince cable companies to allow Apple branded TVs to use the Apple interface rather than the set top box of the cable company. As long as consumers pretty much have to use the cable company interface, or as long as cable card is inconvenient to install, it's going to be difficult to break into the market.
That is, until such time as streaming over the Internet is capable of replacing cable service.
Re:But Microsoft can't bundle a browser?!?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
They have proprietary system that is designed to be very costly to leave. In order for someone to decide to abandon Apple, they have to be first comfortable with losing any access to whatever DRM laden purchases they've made and be willing to flush all of that money down the toilet and spend it all over again.
It's classic vendor lock.
DVD and BD may be "primitive" but I can choose from multiple vendors without completely losing access to my entire media library.
Re:But Microsoft can't bundle a browser?!?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:anti competitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-Competitive needn't be limited to sleazy back room dealings to prevent competitors access to the market.
But Apple hasn't done things to prevent competitors from entering the market; as evidenced by the number of competitors it has in each market it is in.
Apple's devices, in particular, have been unassailable; which puts other CE manufacturers in an awkward position. If Apple could be counted on to add a little "Redmond design" to each product, there would be a more competitive landscape.
Success in the marketplace does not equate to being anti-competitive. In fact, much of what Apple does is rather beneficial to competitors - Apple doesn't slash prices to drive competitors out, they actual tend to keep theirs high even when other products enter their markets, they don't demand exclusivity in order to use their software on a product (they don't even license their OS); they don't limit their competitors ability to distribute and sell their products in the same markets; they don't get other manufacturers together and say "the price of tablets is $600, the price of computers is $900"...
They have a significant presence in the market because their products are popular, not because of any anti-competitive actions on their part.
Re:But Microsoft can't bundle a browser?!?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who you choose to blame. Your attempt to create excuses for Apple are ultimately meaningless.
The fact remains that Apple is being handed the means to create and enforce a monopoly on a silver platter.
This is simply inevitable when you have SINGLE VENDOR DRM.
The "evil content industry" imposes this on physical media but at least that's a multiple-vendor DRM standard. YU