While 3D tv has been a nonstarter for most people, a lot of clients are focused on either enhancing or supplanting broadcast television entirely. I don't do television installs without AppleTVs and more and more often Roku.I don't think Hulu and Netflix,as they're ported to televisions, are ready to completely satisfy users, but you can get an amazing experience on your computer and it's easy to see the writing on the wall. We're probably only a few contracts and years of litigation away from the death of traditional tv.
Thank you to our Sponsors
Apple to introduce TV sets
43 replies
Mighty Quinn,You're right. The AppleTV has universal appeal, but the isn't enough on it to make it a huge success. It's a great supplement to regular tv, but the Roku actually has more content. Roku has hulu plus and amazon on demand. It's also retro compatible with TVs all the way back to tubes. When Steve can find a way to pack more content on it it will sell more, but for the time being, the iTunes store is not as compelling for video as it is for audio. It's more expensive than cable tv on demand and older movies and series are often free on other services. I made the mistake once of buying the first season of a television show for $40 on iTunes only to realize the entire series was free streaming on Netflix. So while pay per track may work for music, where most people collect large collections and listen to music repeatedly, video seems to naturally lend itself to subscriptions since we may only watch a movie or tv series every few years. Of course, as it has been since the iPod, the problem is not a technological one, but one of licensing and legality, so to think that building AppleTV into an actual television would change the game misses the point. And given the price points Apple would have to charge (let's say a 20% premium over the higher end of Sony or Samsung) to maintain its standards for ID and premium position in the market and you'd have an even bigger dud than the current AppleTV. After all, if a company like Apple can sell millions of people $500-800 tablet computers that are largely for novelty but not a $99 box, the problem is bigger than form factor!
...let's face it , Samsung will supply the screens...
Apple to Samsung "ok, let's get in to the TV business and compete against each other in your own established market? But remember we're suing you for copying the iPad/iPhone though!"
Samsung to Apple "sounds like a plan to us! Deal done".
I really can't imagine this happening. Why would it make any sense? Apple have a really strange repair policy for example. We have a broken 27" iMac - which is very heavy - in our office. Apple's solution? Walk it to an Apple store. Do they realise how impractical this is? God only knows how they'd handle broken 55" TVs.
Apple aren't geared up to manufacture, compete, display or fix TVs. It's a different kind of business.
As good as Apple's TV's may be they won't have the "snob" appeal of a mega expensive TV.
Snob value comes from the brand as much as the design. I'm afraid more people view Apple as a brand to own that B&O. Add Apple's superb design in to the mix and the "snob" appeal will be greater for the masses than a B&O TV.
As I've said in another forum discussion, I wandered over to the B&O Selfridges display area the other day. There's a new(ish) Loewe display area. It's far more modern, appealing and prices more compelling, than B&O. The TVs are better designed, more functionality builtin (Apple TV within the TV) and about half the price! Walked over to the B&O display area and it was sad, dated and with a really old, greying, sales person wandering around aimlessly. Didn't look appealing and no-one was looking at the product.
The age of the sales person sort of summed up B&O's market (or who they view as their market). People 50+, with a bit too much spare cash, willing to invest in a TV that lasts a little longer than your average TV. What they fail to realise is that kids love to swap out and get the latest equipment. It's the new fad. People don't keep electronic devices for years. They want the latest mobile, iPad, TV and car. They get bored, quickly. They don't like to be seen with the same stuff for too long. This is the market which B&O will have to appeal to in the very near future.
If Apple did get in to TVs - and I doubt they will for reasons I've mentioned above - the "snob value" for the majority of <40 year olds will be far greater for an Apple product than anything B&O can produce. Plus a 55" TV from Apple will be well designed, contain Apple TV funtionality, ship with a superb remote, WiFi as standard and, let's face it, for about £2500.
i can imagine how you can think that, but the TV business works differently to those other industries.. $60bn pa of revenue is gained via the MSOs, IPTV and Satellite paytv operators and these contracts are not easy for the content owners to wean themselves off as they need this for content creation costs. cord-cutting isn't happening with the total subscriber count of paytv operators increasing year on year. Steve Jobs himself has said that the economics do not favour Apple to address this market. this is even before i could address the content differences between other media and video.
Here's who should be really worried about Apple making a television: cable & satellite providers. Apple wants the revenue streams associated with content distribution. Gillette will never make the highest end razor, just the one that moves the most cartridges.
Rubbish, Apple have no content contracts for linear TV. It's the video rental stores that are in trouble with Netflix, Apple etc.
Just like with music, movies, TV Shows, eBooks, Apps etc. when they have the hardware to support it ... they'll dictate the terms and make those agreements appear almost overnight. They've proven this time and time again.
Totally agree with Moxxey. I know Selfridges, London well. Very good Loewe stand too.
Out of interest I'd love to say B&O lasts however, i've found different. I've bought Panasonic?technics gear since 1985 and found their products last a good 10+ years - Cd players, VCRs, Amps etc. My B&O Century's electric door has been temporamental from Day 1, The Tape deck died after 3 years, the Cd jumps and don't get me started on my dam DVD1! So maybe we are under an illusion! Why did I pay £750 for a DVD player that won't even play DVDs properly? Hummm
I think that big corporations do a pretty good job of keeping their legal practices separate from their business practices. It is not uncommon for two competitors to being suing each other over IP infringement at the same time that they are both manufacturing and selling components to each other. Happens all the time in the automotive industry as well as the consumer electronics industry.
From what I read on the web, Samsung already supplies components for iPhones and iPads, even though they obviously make competitive products and are being sued by Apple over these products.
Bottom line is that if Samsung runs the numbers and sees $$$, then they would supply screens to Apple. Getting their product into a higher price point display would probably be good for Samsung, who would likely see a halo effect with their own branded product line.
Of course, this is merely speculation on my part.
Cheers,
TMQ
....
If a nice looking Apple TV does come out and it is affordable, with great connectivity and is cosmetically amazing, the Beovision 8 and 10 will have to be bloody good to keep themselves in the market. B&O can't survive selling the odd 7-55 to "snobs"
Owning a 7-55 set (TV / Stand / loudspeaker) I agree that B&O needs to have a good family of TVs that allow customers to grow, in this regard, the portfolio needs tweaks in the entry range. (My start with B&O TVs 24 years ago was with a humble, still in use LX 2502).
B&O is expensive, however, with a TV "set" and the system price you purchase a two- axis motorized stand (should survive forever), an outstanding speaker (7/4 or 7/6 - should last forever) and a top quality screen with built in BS3 and tons of speaker and surround options.
Most likely, 30.000 - 40.000 TV hours down the line, B&O can still service the set, moreover, the capabilities of the system are barely challenged.
What would an equal system - not just a shiny display - from Apple cost, including above mentioned components and longterm service promise?
I am not sure the world would be that far apart.
Re Apple. The brand has outstanding products and a very strong appeal. However, their play may be more in managing content. Under such a scenario, not sure I would like to route my content preferences over my seller of hardware... I see it important that B&O further improves link and interface capability of its TVs... giving their customers the choice of which hardware to connect... it may well be the Apple TV box.
Bottom line is that if Samsung runs the numbers and sees $$, then they would supply screens to Apple.
They already do - for iPads and Cinema Displays, amongst other things. Indeed, Apple invested something like £150 million in Samsung's LCD production a few years ago.
They'll supply parts, no doubt about it. But whether they'll start working with Apple on TVs, their core market, is another thing entirely.
Paul - I've had so many software issues with BV7-40s over the last few years, you do have wonder why we bother!
Dont think B&O will have anything to worry them - Apples could not even make iMac with a decent screen /forum/general-discussion-and-questions/apple-to-introduce-tv-sets
Please Log In to Reply
You must be logged in as a BeoWorld member to post replies to forum threads.
or
Join BeoWorld
Register to access the forums, reference material, and exclusive member benefits — including our monthly prize draw.
Become a Member