Remember when people got excited about an Apple announcement?
Oct 29, 2013, 5:49 pm
#76
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
60-inch TVs aren't that common, I think the average or median in the US is around 45 inches, maybe not even that much.
It's one thing to sell tens of millions of phones a quarter when they're subsidized and most people pay $200 up front, or iPads with an ASP around $500, which sell maybe 1/3 the volume of iPhones.
But a big screen TV with some processing integrated (better processing than most of the smart TVs) will cost probably at least $2000.
They're simply not going to move the same kind of volumes, unless they come up with some new distribution paradigm where people get a la carte and don't have to pay what they're paying for cable now.
Even then, it's doubtful the TV market will be as big or lucrative as mobile devices.
Content owners haven't shown they're interested so far and cable companies will be hard to cut out of the distribution, since they own the pipes that people want.
It's one thing to sell tens of millions of phones a quarter when they're subsidized and most people pay $200 up front, or iPads with an ASP around $500, which sell maybe 1/3 the volume of iPhones.
But a big screen TV with some processing integrated (better processing than most of the smart TVs) will cost probably at least $2000.
They're simply not going to move the same kind of volumes, unless they come up with some new distribution paradigm where people get a la carte and don't have to pay what they're paying for cable now.
Even then, it's doubtful the TV market will be as big or lucrative as mobile devices.
Content owners haven't shown they're interested so far and cable companies will be hard to cut out of the distribution, since they own the pipes that people want.
Oct 29, 2013, 6:53 pm
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 37,486
The kind of people who will drop money for an Apple made TV will probably already have something pretty neat. Don't forget that a 60" TV is only around $1000, well within means for most people who worship Apple. Heck, I have two 60" and one 55" in my house, along with several 42" and 32" panels.
Apple has had almost 8 years to make a good TV product, and quite frankly, Apple TV just doesn't impress me. Roku does a much better job, has more channels and is just as easy to use. I just can't think of anything Apple could do to the TV that others haven't already tried to master. Google learned the hard way that people don't care for apps on their TV.
Oct 29, 2013, 7:55 pm
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 12,171
Apple has had almost 8 years to make a good TV product, and quite frankly, Apple TV just doesn't impress me. Roku does a much better job, has more channels and is just as easy to use. I just can't think of anything Apple could do to the TV that others haven't already tried to master. Google learned the hard way that people don't care for apps on their TV.
I have a Roku and an AppleTV on all three TV's in my house. The Apple TV get used the most by my non tech family. The iTunes integration is what makes the difference.
Oct 29, 2013, 9:01 pm
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 37,486
Exactly. I hate iTunes and do not have any content in it, which is why I don't like Apple TV 
I have a lot of movies in UltraViolet, another standard Apple doesn't like.
As for Angry Birds, I wouldn't say my household is a normal one
I have a lot of movies in UltraViolet, another standard Apple doesn't like.
As for Angry Birds, I wouldn't say my household is a normal one
Oct 30, 2013, 12:39 am
#80
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 239
Well, the iPhone outsold Galaxy S4 34 millions to 16 millions in the 4th quarter, but in the same quarter, Samsung actually sold 86 millions smartphones. Apple maybe winning who got the best sold smartphone game, but Samsung is winning the we sold the most number of smartphones contest.
Apple did not want to make any tablet but the iPad, until the competition started stealing giant chunks of market share with smaller/cheaper tablets. So Apple played catch-up with the iPad mini.
Apple did not want to make any phone but the iPhone, until the competition started stealing giant chunks of market share with cheaper phones, so Apple played catch up again.
It's amazing to me that Apple has the sales they do with such a tiny product line-up (in terms of the iPad/iPhone/iPod). They can well afford to be taking lots of shots - some of which will pan out, some of which won't. But it seems like they don't even want to take a swing these days. I dunno if they are afraid to fail or so arrogant as to think they dictate markets? But either way, market share is tumbling in some of their most critical markets, so something isn't going right.
Oct 30, 2013, 12:45 am
#81
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 239
What, exactly is Samsung "winning?" The war? Is there a war? A game? Are we in the 4th quarter or about to head to extra time?
Apple is making money hand over fist. That's what they care about. Samsung has always been a mass market, throw as many devices at the wall and and what sticks kind of company (have you ever noticed how many SKUs there are for appliances?). In the end both companies are profitable.
Why is is so difficult for people to understand that Apple as a company has never been focused on mass marketshare? Their roots have always been in the premium priced market. Look at the Mac: never competed on price, always at a hefty premium over the PC. The first iPhone was $500 for cryin out loud! Apple cares about as much about capturing marketshare as Mercedes does...
In the end, competition is a great thing. Who wants a monopoly? Does anyone remember how much Windows started sucking when OS/2 died? I'm cheering for Windows Phone 8! For iOS! for Android!
Apple is making money hand over fist. That's what they care about. Samsung has always been a mass market, throw as many devices at the wall and and what sticks kind of company (have you ever noticed how many SKUs there are for appliances?). In the end both companies are profitable.
Why is is so difficult for people to understand that Apple as a company has never been focused on mass marketshare? Their roots have always been in the premium priced market. Look at the Mac: never competed on price, always at a hefty premium over the PC. The first iPhone was $500 for cryin out loud! Apple cares about as much about capturing marketshare as Mercedes does...
In the end, competition is a great thing. Who wants a monopoly? Does anyone remember how much Windows started sucking when OS/2 died? I'm cheering for Windows Phone 8! For iOS! for Android!
I find people always tout the "winningest" (hate that word) metric of their chosen company and tout it as the only thing that matters.
If you are a company founder, how much money *you* make is the most important metric. By that standard, Bill Gates "wins". And Microsoft fanboys would tout that as the important factor.
For people touting the companies, isn't the stock price what really matters? Profits are often related to stock price, but not always. An acquaintance and big Apple fanboy used to always tout stock price gains as the important metric when he called me out for buying heavily into Amazon and Google as he bought into Apple. He's upside down on his investment in a big way at the moment. I've done well
My point is simply that I think market share is really the most important thing - more important than all else. After all, if you are king of premium high-profit products, but your market share is 0.01%, then you aren't selling enough to be a player.
Apple did so well because they sold premium high-profit products to a wide audience, and made unprecedented quantities of cash. But now that their market share is in a tumble, that necessarily will impact their bottom line at some point.
I think Apple realizes this too, as they have begun to try to claw back some of that market share with products like the iPad mini and new cheaper iPhones.
Oct 30, 2013, 1:13 pm
#85
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,839
This is the main reason why Apple have been lukewarm in the TV space IMO. The last 5 years plus have shown they are only interested in playing in new areas if they can control/benefit from end-to-end revenue stream including content. They see limited value in being hardware-only. This a much bigger task in TV than mobile devices (and computers ) due to the size and 'embeddedness' of the incumbents.
Oct 30, 2013, 1:36 pm
#86
Join Date: Jul 2008
Programs: Club Carlson Gold, AMEX Platinum, EBG
Posts: 397
ok so if Apply haven't hit a home run for a while what sort of product do folks suggest they launch, I'm a bit stuck on what they could do next, ok there's the iTV and iWatch, but I don't see either as multi-billion dollars markets for them.
Oct 30, 2013, 3:15 pm
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ORD
Posts: 14,231
Oct 30, 2013, 4:55 pm
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 37,486
Does it need to be a billion dollar hit? Apple TV was launched as a "hobby", so they do have a history of playing around with stuff.
Oct 30, 2013, 5:15 pm
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
Oct 30, 2013, 8:08 pm
#90
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 12,171
Dan Frommer (Via Jon Gruber):
And it’s not that Apple has stopped innovating. One particularly impressive feat — which will never get the appreciation it deserves — is that in half a decade, Apple has scaled from a company that can reliably design, produce, sell, and support 75 million gadgets in a year to one that can move that many in three months. (The first time Apple sold 9 million iPhones in a quarter was three years ago — September, 2010. This year, it shipped 9 million iPhones in a single weekend.) This despite increasing competence and competition from Google, Samsung, Amazon, and Microsoft.
But where Apple has disappointed recently is in novelty, or surprise. Perhaps this is unfair, but it’s real. Apple became the company that delivered “new”. People got used to hearing about new stuff all the time — iPod nanos, iPhones, MacBook Airs, iPads — and now it seems like it’s been a while. The more people got, the more they wanted.
http://www.splatf.com/2013/10/apple-lull/
But where Apple has disappointed recently is in novelty, or surprise. Perhaps this is unfair, but it’s real. Apple became the company that delivered “new”. People got used to hearing about new stuff all the time — iPod nanos, iPhones, MacBook Airs, iPads — and now it seems like it’s been a while. The more people got, the more they wanted.