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.

24 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Compelling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yea, personally I think a TV is a lot more compelling than a half-assed watch.

    1. Re:Compelling? by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Compelling? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Compelling? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      And either way, Wired would have called it the greatest and most revolutionary product ever made.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Compelling? by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The TV market is bad, but the watch market is not great.

      What they should be trying to crack is the in-car nav/infotainment systems - the iCarStereo. Current nav systems are somewhere between total-suckage and so-distracting-they-cause-accidents. Bluetooth pairing is painful when it even works, calling systems don't integrate with smartphone phonebooks, there is no way to share contact addresses, and the voice controls are no better than someone reading a "Car navigation is attempting to quit, cancel or allow?" dialog box. And the interfaces are so poor as to command the driver's full attention for seconds, looking for touch-screen items or clicking the right button, taking focus off the task of driving.

      People would trade their old cars in for one equipped with an Apple iCarStereo if it solved those problems. A watch? It will take a lot of luck for it to be more than a fashion item that falls off the radar in a few years.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Compelling? by schlachter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Compelling? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's also the problem that TVs tend either to be cheap crap for the cost sensitive(a market where Apple has little hope, much less an advantage), or one component of a larger, often partially customized for the room, 'home theater' setup. The latter is the place where customers might actually be willing to spend more money to get cooler stuff; but Apple has a very, very, tiny product lineup compared to the demands of a home theater integration type; and has a fairly tepid history of playing well with others and not shoving their pro users under the bus because they want to iterate their product line at consumer speeds.

      Not only is the TV market as a whole a bit of a bloodbath, the TV market for which Apple would be most capable(systems nicer than those purchased more or less purely on price; but cheap and consumer grade enough that they need cooperate in only the most basic ways with other hardware) is especially harrowing. Since TVs are a keep-it-simple-stupid sort of device, there's virtually no UI/UX difference between the cheap crap and the midrange, it's just a question of how nice the panel is.

      At least with computers, it is very often the case that cheap computers are a recipe for regret and sorrow, so Apple's strategy of 'we are going to charge you more; but give you the product you actually want, even if you don't know it yet' often makes people happy. With TVs, people who think that they want a big, cheap, screen are usually correct.

    7. Re:Compelling? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Exactly. TV's tend to be a low margins price sensitive business an that just isn't Apple's game. More importantly, virtually all of the advanced features they could build into a TV they could put into AppleTV and carve out the higher margin part of the TV business and leave the display manufacturers to fight it out. In auditor, building features into AppleTV means they can adapt to whatever display technology is popular without having to pick a winner as they would have to if they built a TV and the Apple TV can simply connect to a new display whenever an old one is replaced an thus Apple's connection with the end user is not lost when the TV is upgraded.

      Why go into a low margin business where the technology isn't settled and you have no real advantage to be able to charge a premium that you can't already charge with an existing device?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Compelling? by fortfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're doing this. Granted, there's no iOS car version yet, but Carplay is a solid step in that direction.

    9. Re:Compelling? by cpotoso · · Score: 4, Informative

      No one in tech does that. But the insinuation that Apple is a worst offender here is demonstrably false. Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.

      Please explain why my Mac Pro 2,1 which has 8 cores of Xeon 3 GHz and 21 GB of RAM is not able to run anything above Lion? Even though it is 7 years old, It is still faster than almost anything apple has to offer (esp. after I upgraded to SSD). Yet, I am stuck on Lion unless I am willing to make a hackintosh out of it and then it can actually run any OSX... so... no real reason why it can't run newer OSX, just that apple did not want to do it.

    10. Re:Compelling? by jvj24601 · · Score: 4, Informative
      (sorry off-topic)

      It can't run because your Mac Pro only has a 32-bit EFI. This is not an excuse for Apple for not making it work; I'm just noting the actual technical reasoning.

      http://www.everymac.com/system...

      However, the simple workaround (if you have a Yosemite-compatible video card) that doesn't involve a Hackintosh-level install is to use a modified boot.efi file that thunks EFI64 calls from the 64-bit OS X kernel to the EFI32 firmware of your Pro. Look at the first post of this thread

      http://forums.macrumors.com/sh...

      and navigate to the section quoted below.

      Another simplified installation approach is to use a second Yosemite-supported Mac and install Yosemite to the 2006/2007 Mac Pro's drive. This may be done either by attaching the 2006/2007 Mac Pro's drive as an external drive by placing the 2006/2007 Mac Pro in target disk mode or otherwise mounting the 2006/2007 Mac Pro's drive to a Yosemite-supported Mac. Then, after installation, copy Pike's EFI32 boot.efi to that drive's /usr/standalone/i386 and /System/Library/CoreServices/ directories overwriting the stock Apple EFI64 boot.efi and repair permissions. That drive should now be bootable on a 2006/2007 Mac Pro

      I'm typing this from my Mac Pro 1,1 (with an ATI Radeon HD 4870). I used a different Mac (recent Mac Mini) to install Yosemite to a drive, copied the updated boot.efi file, installed the drive into my Pro, and I've been good to go ever since.

  2. Why did they ditch the TV? by nbvb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why did they ditch the TV? by dj245 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      My company declines jobs and new markets all the time. We run some quick numbers and make a decision on whether it makes sense to take on X risk for Y% margin. Nobody calls us "magic".

      Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the potential to charge $1 for a lime that everyone else is selling for 50 cents.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Why did they ditch the TV? by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the potential to charge $1 for a lime that everyone else is selling for 50 cents

      Apple's flagship phones sell for about the same as Samsung's. Apple's computers sell for similar prices to PC systems of similar specs.

      What Apple doesn't do is sell garbage systems to chase the cheap end of the market. No one complains that BMW won't sell a $10,000 car.

      People whine and moan about all the crapware that comes bundled with the latest Dell PC, but that's how they manage to make a profit. Apple just charges a reasonable price for the system instead. It also means Apple has the money to fund R&D and invest in manufacturing technology. When was the last time any of the PC makers innovated on anything?

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  3. Make it more expensive ? by itzly · · Score: 3, Informative

    They could have added $1000 to the price. That's always a popular Apple feature.

    1. Re:Make it more expensive ? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!
  4. Quit it with smart TVs by Enry · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  5. Re:and it would only work with other apple product by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  6. Re:and it would only work with other apple product by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Skype is available on all platforms last I checked. Maybe that's what he meant by Skype.

  7. This is why... by countSudoku() · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:This is why... by bazorg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it did have less space than a Nomad and lacked wireless...

  8. All they really need as a compelling feature is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:and it would only work with other apple product by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

    But messages and facetime are both not, which would be the relevant products here.

  10. The horrible TV control interface by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.