Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television
Apple has been rumored to be developing their own line of HDTVs for years, but a new report from the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) says while those plans did exist, they've been abandoned. Apple began pondering the idea of jumping into the television market roughly a decade ago, as iTunes started hosting video content. The AppleTV made a foray into living rooms in 2007, and other devices reached the prototype stage. The company continued to do research and work on their ideas, but eventually gave up more than a year ago.
Apple had searched for breakthrough features to justify building an Apple-branded television set, those people said. In addition to an ultra-high-definition display, Apple considered adding sensor-equipped cameras so viewers could make video calls through the set, they said. Ultimately, though, Apple executives didn't consider any of those features compelling enough to enter the highly competitive television market, led by Samsung Electronics Co. Apple typically likes to enter a new product area with innovative technology and easier-to-use software.
Yea, personally I think a TV is a lot more compelling than a half-assed watch.
Because they have half a clue ...
Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the ability to innovate and change it. They aren't always first movers, but they DO bring innovation and of course profits to any segment they enter.
The magic is in saying "NO" to doing things that don't make sense... entering a crowded, unimaginative, razor-thin margin, mature TV market doesn't make sense for Apple. That's why they said no.... No more, no less.
They could have added $1000 to the price. That's always a popular Apple feature.
I think that within 20 years the Hololens concepts presented by MS will be reality (http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us).
Initially it won't be a fashion statement but as the tech gets better it will become a standard in society (who knows how long that could take). After all the ability to connect your virtual world with the real world has been the focus of technology for a long time.
i can skype on my xbox via kinect with anyone who has a skype client. apple would have to go all rainman and build in compatibility with other products. into the product and not as a standalone app.
You say this as if HDTVs can't have apps...
... to use an iTV like a jackass, like in a public place...
I have a Smart TV but I don't use any of the functionality of it. I have separate devices that I can use to do the exact same functions and I can replace them easily for a small amount of money if I want new/different features.
For an example of why I do this, there's how google changed their YouTube API so a bunch of older devices no longer work with it. Watch YouTube on a TV? Replace the entire TV. Watch it off a Chromecast and want to replace it? $35
You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple
Skype is available on all platforms last I checked. Maybe that's what he meant by Skype.
Macintosh TV: Introduced Oct1993, died Feb 1994. We hardly knew ye... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
HA HA! Seriously, we have make your own sandwich day at work, so FU!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
And iTunes is available on Windows also - just sayin'
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's why I use a dumb, feature-less 23" widescreen computer monitor as my TV, connected to an external AppleTV box.
So you use a monitor with a substantially smaller screen size than even my old CRT TV. I am looking at 60"+ TVs and these are basically all "smart TVs". The main feature I want in a TV for my living room is a huge screen. Like you I don't give a crap about most of the extra features. I just want enough input ports to hook up to my gear and a big screen with a very good image quality. Don't need Netflix, 3D, or any of the other crap. If I want it I'll use an external box to get it.
So is iTunes. So what?
Skype is owned and run by Microsoft, that's what the replying gent was saying. All of those three "different" services are all run/owned by the same company. NOT to have high-intregration would be a major black eye
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
a smart TV with a responsive UI that isn't a nightmare to navigate and actually gets updates after you buy it.
Although at this point, all I want from a TV anymore is a display with a bunch of inputs, no speakers, no network connectivity, no tuner and no smart features. I haven't used the audio, tuner or smart features on my current Panasonic Viera in years, all it does is display whatever source is selected on the receiver, all the rest of those "features" were a waste of money.
Skype on linux is about as broken as you can possibly get....they haven't done an update to it since Microsoft bought it. Not that I am surprised or anything...
Skype runs best on OS X and iOS, since it was originally a non-Microsoft product. Skype still gets updated on OS X first and then Windows.
Facetime on Windows, on the other hand - oh, right, Apple doesn't do non-Apple platforms. I'd say "iTunes excepted" except I've used iTunes on Windows, and it's clear that Apple doesn't do Windows software since it doesn't work on Windows.
Cable card / tru2way flop as well as well all the world tv standards also got in the way.
Also there are boxes with CI card slots for sat and they can be made to work with pay tv (for most part that is not supported and some times get's blocked as well)
I thought I read somewhere that they were making an 8K TV/monitor. I guess that's not enough of a breakthrough though.
TV's are basically a commodity item. Thin margins, race to the bottom, etc. Watches, although many of them are very cheap, can be a high end luxury item.
I don't see Apply trying to compete with Casio in the $10 watch market. But I do see them competing with Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer, Breitling, etc. in the very high end watch market. The profit margin in this market is quite high. You can also control the price, unlike the TV market.
The other thing about watches is that people that are into watches (like me) collect them. So even if you already have a nice watch or two you can always add the Apple watch if it has something you desire.
Wow. Also runs on Windows.
That might be impressive if we didn't have Linux, or Roku, or Android, or Playstation, or Nintendo, or every other brand of TV, streamer, and bluray player.
To make Gene Munster throw himself out of a window.
Once his demise has been confirmed (with some steak-driven technology), the plans can continue apace.
ding ding ding ding!
Because they couldn't overcharge. I'm sure they researched the industry and discovered that it is highly price competitive and that just putting an aluminium frame on it would justify a doubling or tripling in price. So they weren't interested. Apple only likes markets where they can overcharge to a massive degree. They don't want to just make money, they want to make stupid amounts of money.
But messages and facetime are both not, which would be the relevant products here.
Sounds like a projector would be perfect for you, if your TV room would work with one. Price is (or can be) comparable to your average TV monitor, for an image 2-3 times larger, and just as HD.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
You say this as if HDTVs can't have apps...
It can't. Unless they have embedded advertisements.
I have an old Vizio that has a really nice 24 hour content guide for OTA broadcasts. But the TV set is getting close to it's end of life, so I started looking for the same feature in a new one. Cannot have. Now, you need an app that fetches the listing information over a broadband connection. So advertisers can attach stuff and track what you are watching.
Have gnu, will travel.
If Apple really wants to grow their business, they can start by making their existing product line more manageable in a large enterprise. Corporations aren't going to ditch workstations in favor of tablets or watches. They need to get real work done. Microsoft's iron grip via Office is weakening, and Apple has a real chance to grow their business by providing something that users have been wanting for years. They're about tapped out on consumer discretionary spending; they need to make inroads on the professional side. They have been sucked into a IoT mania.
AAC files downloaded from iTunes work fine on all Sony gear (including the PlayStation). And quite a lot of other audio gear.
And of course, you can run iTunes on a Linux box if you really want to - it's not like a few extra steps are a problem for a Linux user.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
TO be fair, Windows MCE requires an internet connection to fetch listings too
Good-bye
We'll see. Nadella is DEFINITELY turning the ship to embrace other platforms, Skype might just be late.
Good-bye
I don't think you can get 4K projectors yet.
Also, my long long room with peaked roof wouldn't be ideal for the projector.
Otherwise I'd be interested.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I bought and use an Apple TV all the time. It's how my kids watch Netflix, and how we rent movies 99% of the time. I love it. I would never buy an Apple television, though, because 1) I like my Vizio, 2) I don't want to have to upgrade my display just because an input device broke or became obsolete, and 3) there literally zero advantage to that arrangement instead of an external box connected via HDMI.
Lots of devices have built-in screens and it makes sense for them. I wouldn't buy a separate screen for a display-less laptop, for instance; making CPU + display into a single unit is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason at all for that to be true in the living room, though. How many sizes should they make? Does everyone get a 60" Apple Television even if they have a tiny living room, or will I be squinting at a 30" Apple Television from across the room? Which pixel technology will they choose? Eh, no thanks. Component systems still have their place, and the living room entertainment system is probably the perfect example of that.
I love my cheap little Apple TV and will probably upgrade it to the next model when that comes out. I don't love it so much that I'd throw out a perfectly usable display panel as part of the deal.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
They can only chase low hanging fruit. They wimped out at getting into the rough and tumble world of a commoditized business - just like so many other American companies. Instead of fighting for your share and hodling it, you give up and move on to some other trendy concept for a few years and then move on. Man up boys.
The rumors of the new Apple TV don't even sound compelling. As of the latest rumors I've seen there is no HDMI 2.0 or "4K" support. So if they don't upgrade again for 2-3 years then thats a long time ignoring 4k content which they could charge a premium for streaming 4k content now as its still not mass market.
They seem to be pushing IoT and making the Apple TV the smart hub for the house. That 'could' be interesting, but it also could be a completely unused feature for 99% of customers and go no where.
Nothing i have to say is worth saying.
For many the TV you buy is a complicated matter, and for many others there's going to be price issues. An Apple built TV would just be super expensive and Apple would have to quit making the AppleTV so people would be forced to buy their Apple built TV.
That would never make any sense. The AppleTV is a gateway to iTunes movies and rentals, and all those people who purchased content on them would go ballistic if they were suddenly told they have to buy a Apple built TV if they wanted to continue to watch their purchased content on a TV.
Apple can make a difference in DVR's and a over the top tv service, and that should be their focus in this space.
killed Xserve and don't let you run osx in vm's*
*can run in a VM on apple hardware but not legally on any VM system.
Why? 24 hour listing data is broadcast in over the air streams along with the program material.
Have gnu, will travel.
... it just didn't want to dilute it's brand.
I got a smart tv for my wife for Christmas this year. Big fucking mistake. WiFi doesn't work reliably, UI is dog slow / unresponsive, UI is ugly and disjointed, the apps are far less polished and functional than those on our AppleTV.
Saying that there is no space for an innovative TV product is like saying that there was no space for an innovative phone product in 2005, or that a music player without wifi and with less space than a Nomad would be foolish to introduce in a mature mp3 player market with no real space for innovation.
If Apple can come up with a solution to this, it will own the nation's living rooms no matter how much its approach may cost. As it stands now every TV set has its own complex remote, which controls the receiver itself and selects your chosen device inputs into it. Each DVD player, PVR, game console and streaming box you attach to the set has its own remote, with its own different control interface that you have to mentally readapt to whenever you use the TV remote to select that device as the input. In addition to these and worst of all is the remote that controls your cable box, with its F-35 cockpit array of function buttons that cover every feature that any cable provider using the box might want to support. Each cable company allows some subset of these functions, leaving your cable remote with a number of "forbidden" buttons that if pressed accidentally will send your entertainment system into a region of hyperspace that only the cable company CSR can retrieve you from.
Then there is the content mess. No cable company online guide system works well enough for you to easily figure out what time CSI: Ramadi is on for your location, especially if you are not in a Major Urban Market. The Internet TV guides will get you the right night of the week eventually, but does it know you're on Arizona time, or is it an hour off this time of year? And since you're edging into cord cutting you're aware that you can stream last Wednesday's missed episode from the network site, if you're lucky enough that its Verify Your Provider logon actually includes your cable company in the list of five that it accepts. So you thought you had a right to view the program because it's over-the-air or on your cable tier?
Apple, do whatever it takes to bring some sanity to this interface, hopefully before the next time my mother accidentally lays a book down on her cable remote and loses contact with all her favorites for a week.
I always wondered if they were afraid of alienating their base. The further back you go, the more Apple users were likely to be the people with KILL YOUR TELEVISION bumper stickers. Sure, their products are for the masses now, but by building a TV they'd be admitting that it was really time to stick a fork in the idea that Apple is for better people. They might have lost that particular vocal minority. It wouldn't have killed them over night, but they might have started to acquire an AOL-like aura. FWIW, I think they're already there and it's just a matter of time for the cool people to find something else.
"We realized even Appleheads won't buy a TV that only lets them watch programs through the iTunes store, and we can't figure out how to insert ads in to your cable feed."
Of course they did. Because no consumer product can exist in the 21st century that does not spy on the customer.
I'm old enough to remember when companies made money by manufacturing and selling products, not having products upskirt their customers privacy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... If Apple would make a relatively affordable TV on which I could buy and play movies via iTunes, I'd buy it.
I'm sick and tired of all the existing smart TV's; the last thing they are it's smart
-- Samsung 65" smart TV owner
Well, besides all the other listed problems with moving into the TV market. I'm sure apple had two major roadblocks for a uber high res TV. The question of who would supply the glass, and who would supply the content probably were insurmountable. Its not like Samsung or LG were going to sign exclusive sales deals to only sell the panels to apple. Then there are the content providers who probably refused to provide custom content for apple devices fearing a repeat of the itunes situation where they became beholden to apple.
Is it still terrible on Windows though? Also, Skype is available on way more platforms.
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones. On the Mac messages can link to your favorite message client, which also works on anything. Facetime I will concede.
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement. And while Apple is definitely the most exclusive, I do use Gmail & Hangouts on my iPhone to talk to my wife on Android, and that works just fine and is what I use rather than Messages most of the time because we're too cheap to pay for SMS. So even the meta point is a bit contrived. Most people have ported their apps to the iPhone and the ecosystem works fine, the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
[quote]
I don't think you can get 4K projectors yet.
Also, my long long room with peaked roof wouldn't be ideal for the projector.
Otherwise I'd be interested.
[/quote]
Yes you can. In fact its been around longer as projectors than its been a thing for TV screens. However traditionally thats beause they where used for movie cinemas.
There are however now domestic models.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
TV's and home computers/tablets/smartphones will probably eventually merge/blur; it's fairly obvious that's what's in the longer-term cards. A TV will just be a "really big computer screen".
What's really needed are decent standards to help blur the distinction that the industry as a whole actually follow, not some grand new invention. But intellectual property protectiveness habits of the "old school" content providers seem to get in the way.
Table-ized A.I.
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones
No, not quite. Messages on iphone CAN use SMS to communicate with other phones but that's about it. So yes a dumbphone can reason an iphone with sms, and the iphone will display the sms in messages and let the iphone user use messages to reply... but that''s it.
For example, what if the person you are trying to reach from your 'dumb phone' however is NOT using an iphone with an SMS plan? Or what if they are using messages on an iPod touch or macbook pro? These can't "fail over to SMS" to receive messages from an android or dumb phone. And since the android and dumb phone can't use messages native protocol they can't communicate.
I've been up and down this mess several times already. My daughters friends have a mix of hand me down iphones, ipod touches, and ipads that they chat on with messages. If I give my daughter an android, which would be my preference -- she would not be able to chat with her friends unless they ALL moved over to an alternative messaging app (such as skype), which would be difficult for her to make happen. (In some cases the kids are using a 'family' ipad; and would need their parents permission to even install another app... so the whole group is basically captured on messages and ios or lose the ability to talk to these kids.)
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement.
Agreed his particular example wasn't great. However you can use skype on everything from smart TVs to blackberries to linux desktops. Yes, it is end to end a microsoft software product, and not truly open, but it runs on pretty much anything.
the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
That's wrong. Microsoft has finanicial incentive not to... they'd prefer you ran windows and xbox and windows phones; you might argue they HAVE to support ios or become irrelevant; but that doesn't explain their support for osx, blackberry, or linux...
Similarly, apple messages+facetime, by being apple only IS hurting it. Lots of people use it on their mac or ipad, but they all have to have something else installed to talk to the other half of the planet who isn't running an apple product. If messages+facetime was x-plat it could well become as ubiquitous as skype; and it would be a good halo product to attract people to the apple hardware. As it is, it's mostly within-family product because no large organization or heterogenous group of people are ever ALL running just Apple products. There's always someone with a Windows computer or Android phone... and usually lots of people like that.
Even in my daughters group; as the kids are getting older and starting to get phones -- i fully expect the 'apple monopoly' on their communications is going to end. Because as they advance in their teens they'll all soon have phones etc. And they'll have permission to install apps etc. They'll all but inevitably shift to hangouts or skype or something as a group. I can already see it beginning; and my daughters next phone won't be an iphone -- none of the upcoming handme downs are iphones so unless she get a job buys it herself but that's still a few years out yet.
Most TVs are so big these days that there's a ton of real estate on the back of them for hanging accessories, but other than the VESA mounting bracket standard(s) there isn't a standard for mounting STBs.
Some of the larger STBs (like DVRs with spinning rust) maybe wouldn't be practical rear mounted due to weight, but the smaller boxes like Apple TV or Roku would.
IR transmission for remotes might be an issue, but so many of these boxes can be controlled via wifi that it wouldn't be an issue.
It would also be useful for NUC type PCs where in many use cases IR isn't even a factor.
Because Apple saw what was coming out of LG, Samsung, and Sony and figured add much bullshit they can pull, charging $150k for a slightly off spec 1080p screen is too much be profitable.
"We examined the market and realized there is no way we can charge 3x what everyone else charges and expect to sell a significant amount of units. If Samsung and SONY can't do it, we sure as shit can't."
About the only thing that Apple might bring to a smart TV might be a better UI. My Samsung smart TV UI is usable but certainly could be better. I don't own a Roku, but some have said its UI is somewhat clumsy. I think LG has new smart TVs with Roku build in, but I think an external streaming box is the best solution. Maybe TVs should really be just dumb monitors and even broadcast TV should use a separate box, but I think US regulation or law requires built in TV tuners.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
It's one of their flagship product lines. It's called the "iPad".
Some people mistakenly brand it as a computer, but that's only true if you jailbreak it (and the same could be said for most so-called "smart TVs", except that nobody can be bothered to jailbreak them).
You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple
Yes but his point is obviously that you can use Skype on Microsoft platforms or on Android, iOS, OSX, Ubuntu, etc... Whereas the equivalent Apple product is Facetime which only works on Apple products. Same goes for Airdrop and iMessage.
And iTunes is available on Windows also - just sayin'
You can video chat through iTunes? I don't actually have iTunes and I didn't see that on a feature list but it would make sense if that was the case. Unlike Skype though I don't think you can run iTunes on Android for example and there doesn't seem to be a Linux version of it either, I would assume you just use the Facetime client on iPhone and iPad.
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones.
That's just the fallback option, he's talking about iMessage. If you use Messages on your Mac for example (or any non-cellular device) does it use SMS if iMessage isn't available?
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else.
He even said "skype on my xbox via kinect with anyone who has a skype client ". Do you need it pointed out that if it were Apple then that "somewhere else" must be Apple while in the case of Skype it can be Linux or Android or iPhone or iPad or Mac?
You seem for some reason to be fixated on the fact that Skype is owned by Microsoft when that doesnt matter at all and the obviously more pertinent point is not who owns it but on what systems it runs. Skype (yes it is owned by Microsoft) runs on all the major platforms, Facetime only runs on Apple platforms.
'Excluding advertising, the addressable market for television is approximately $575 billion, which is larger than the smartphone market. Also, given that people spend an average of 12% of the day watching TV (equating to 25% of their free time), we view television’s role in the living room as a strategically compelling bolt-on to the Apple ecosystem.
In addition to an Ultra High Definition television set, we expect Apple to launch a related suite of tiered products and services, including a “skinny bundle” of pay-tv channels (partnered with various media companies) and an updated Apple TV microconsole (which will continue to service the massive install base of televisions offered by other OEMs).
This will enable Apple to pursue the entire market by offering multiple products at various price points across the demographic spectrum. Netflix offers a similar tiered approach to pricing today by charging a higher price for those seeking the ability to receive ultra high definition content.' ref
they're the Blizzard of hardware. They move in on an existing market, usually one that's stalled (like cell phones or tablets) and put out an expensive product that works better than most.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't understand why projectors aren't more common outside professional and fringe amateur applications. I realize there are large projectors, have worked with raising and rigging them, but most domestic applications would require less than 30 lbs. of projector, far less. Even the lightest of large TV's are a pain because of bulkiness. Every home seems to have at least 2 large screen TV's these days... and I don't know why anyone would want such a boat anchor when a projector would work just as well and is a heck of a lot easier to move.
They abandoned the plans because investors knew that people simply wouldn't spend $5,000 on a $500 "smart" TV that could only connect to iTunes.
I've heard about Seiki but they don't currently make a >60" TV, I cannot find one anywhere to actually look at in person, and it's a little hard to tell if it is any good. I'm not brand loyal but a company I've barely heard of making oddly inexpensive TVs does tend to raise red flags.
People are wearing regular watches a lot more. I've talked to people who own jewelry stores that are reporting significantly higher watch sales, repairs of older watches, etc.
I've also noticed a lot more people wearing them. It's interesting to see.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
iTunes runs on Windows? I'll add you to the list of people who have never actually tried to use iTunes on Windows.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And I thought it was because they couldn't find a corner radius for a TV that wasn't already taken by someone else.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Everybody watched Apple crash into the music and then phone market. It was obvious which markets they would enter next. And so the incumbents responded, "oh crap they're coming". Comcast and other players started playing rough with the content licensing and building out their own DVR's and OnDemand services quickly. The TV makers started building smart TV's. And while this mess is horribly fragmented, it leaves little room for Apple to clean up and "innovate". Mostly because, Apple doesn't own the content and they can't pull the same trick they played on AT&T. Like others, I despise Comcast and Smart TV's, but I don't see it changing for a long time. I'd much rather use a TiVo, the user interface is superior, but the content options are restricted and old school. Please Apple, just do it.
I dont think that was live when MCE was first made. Its an OLD program that gets no love at all and will be killed in Win 10.
Good-bye
Saying "Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television" not only makes the assumption that at one point Apple was planning to make a television, it gets you to accept that they were. No one shred of evidence has been shown that such plans existed.
It has gotten to the point where one analyst has actually apologized though, which in itself is a miracle.