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.
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.
The smart watch market is really nascent, Pebble notwithstanding, while the TV market is saturated and cut-throat. A low barrier of entry makes the watch market, while niche, possibly more profitable than trying to crack into they hyper-competitive TV market.
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
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.
They could have added $1000 to the price. That's always a popular Apple feature.
You have been modded as "Troll"; but "making it more expensive" is a usual "(marketing) feature" for some brands (i don't dare to mention Apple because... my "/." karma is suffering righ now!).
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Also their ecosystem is very important to their success, and it would be much harder to rapidly grow an ecosystem with $1K+ TVs that are replaced every 10 yrs rather than a $100 smart box that can be added to each TV in the house and replaced at minimum cost as needed.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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.
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.
Thats a horrible idea - those cars would get vendor locked to apple.
What needs to happen is for these systems to be modular. Screen separate from CPU, and a universal standard for things like steering wheel controls. Allow me to swap out my CPU/Software, and have it use a standard communication method for the integrated controls. Right now the only replacement options are ugly ass after market conversion things that don't work right with the integrated stuff. Example: In my car, I can replace the head unit, and the volume and stuff will work on the steering wheel, but the bluetooth hands free controls are on a separate system so they cant connect to the head unit.