I would be stunned if Apple released an actual "Apple TV" display. It's a super-low margin, commodity business, with very low turnover (how often does someone shell out a grand for a TV?) It's not at all clear to me that there's a strong argument for Apple even to get into set-top boxes; where's the revenue? Rents from the cable companies? Ick.<p>Maybe they'll get in bed with the devil as they did with the iPhone, but a) none of the mooted ideas for an expanded Apple TV are anywhere near as disruptive as the original iPhone was and b) they can't divide and conquer with the cable companies the way the could with the cell providers -- they're still fundamentally regional monopolies, and so a big part of Apple's advantage in the phone world just won't exist. That seems like a loser to me.
Apple has been experimenting with the Apple TV on and off this year with adding streaming content portals of their own content. Netflix has pushed some updates as well. In the 6 months or so I've owned one I've seen more activity in the last 6 weeks than in all the other months together.<p>6 months is not a long enough data set to be conclusive, but paired with Cooks' comments I wonder if internally they're starting to see what can they do with the box that's already there. They've pretty much shown they can add and remove additional content portals without an update, so they can introduce new content at any point, so the more interesting question isn't 'what features do we get next', but 'what content are they signing'.<p>A shiny new piece of Apple kit is <i>great</i>, but the Apple TV in it's current incarnation is, well, fantastic. Would Siri support be nice? Sure. I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it, Siri struggles recognising my North England accent on basic words, let alone with relatively complex titles ('Siri, find me Californication' 'Did you mean...'), but for some people I'm sure it'll be great.<p>The idea of Apple releasing a standalone TV doesn't quite scratch the itch for me. TV sets in general is a market where the consumer demands low, low pricing with relatively few exceptions (B&O springs to mind), so they'd be entering a knife fight of pricing. I'm sure Apple could come in with a beautiful TV, all shine and minimalism and oozing quality, and I'm sure they'd sell <i>some</i>, but it's probably not the best value proposition.
Here's the problem.<p>There's nothing in it for the Cable companies outside of getting rid of the cable box - which is at the cost of giving up control of the software ecosystem.<p>Second point <i>if this type of deal was possible, Microsoft would have already done it</i>. Microsoft has 30 Million Xboxes in peoples homes already, they've been working closely with cable companies on this initiative trying to make them happy. The Xfinity Xbox app has streaming already, but its <i>not</i> replacing your cable box anytime soon.<p>Also, side note, if this did happen (which it won't) a DVR solution would just be a cloud based DVR. The cable operators are doing this already.
I have all the IPTV apps on my phone (BBC iPlayer, 4oD, Sky etc...) and I use these apps to play video on my Apple TV.<p>I feel like Apple have completely nailed how IPTV should work<p>I think that using on screen navigation is awkward because<p>a) Navigating an on screen keyboard with directional keypads is very painful<p>b) If you have a keyboard on your remote, it's still awkward to type as you have to constantly look up to make sure you hit the right keypad<p>c) Using a remote to navigate on screen menus leads to really basic on screen menus (you're essentially limiting yourself to grids or lists)<p>However, by using my iPhone as a remote, I use that TV Channel's app to browse their library right in the iPhone, then just hit play and see it appear on my screen instantly. I can also watch a video on the way back from work, get home and continue on my screen.<p>The great thing is that companies have already developed all these apps, and they are instantly compatible with Apple TV without any extra work from the developers.<p>I reckon the next move from Apple will be to have a TV folder, which is similar to the way that the Newsstand folder works, you subscribe to TV shows and new episodes will appear in that folder, which you can then play on your TV.<p>----<p>Whatever happens, I reckon that this model is the future of on demand TV. Google will have Google TV/Android, Apple will have Apple TV/iOS, Microsoft will have XBox/Windows Phone (or maybe iPhone and Android apps too).
The money in the TV business isn't in the TVs, it's in content. That's why Comcast is a ~$100B company with a revenue of $60B/y. That's the business Apple wants and an Apple TV, either as a set top box or an integrated device is just a way of capturing that.<p>Which of course is the exact opposite of Apple's business model for all it's other devices, where it makes the money off the device and the content ecosystem is there to make the devices desirable and lock in customers (but those locks and chains feel sooo gooood!).<p>This is a long term problem though. I think the best Apple can do is keep involved in the market, have their products and services as well tuned and capable as they can for the moment when they see an opportunity to make a big move. The current Apple TV with iTunes integration, iCloud, Netflix, Airplay, etc means all the pieces are in place ready for them to fill in the content distribution blanks.<p>The one think they don't haveyet on Apple TV that I'd have expected by now is games. An A6 based Apple TV would make a great games platform. My guess is they want to do it, but have had so many major product updates recently and are so focused on mobile iOS, that they just haven't had the management bandwidth to address that yet. I wonder if a Dolphin port is possible, that'd show off it's potential nicely.
<i>For example, ESPN is earning around $6 per subscriber (roughly 100 million people) from the cable/sat companies. If Apple sold channels a la carte, even at a $10/mo subscription, ESPN (Disney) would lose tens of millions of dollars per month and they definitely couldn’t demand the same premium they’re currently getting from traditional TV services.</i><p>I've said it before, Apple should take their cash and buy Disney. There's synergy - a word I rarely use - between the two halo brands.
This is pretty much my theory as well, though I am agnostic on whether it ends up as a set top box or a full TV. Maybe both: If they go with a carrier subsidy model, they could hand out a set top box at a price of more or less free, and offer some gorgeous TV with their usual margins. With the subsidy subtracted out, the sticker shock might not be outrageous. (Just pay no attention to the two year "Apple TV" contract...)<p>But assuming Apple does this at all, the big picture I think is nearly inevitable: Apple allied with the carriers, offering a device with a UI completely controlled by Apple, providing both traditional and "app-style" television, backed by those big data centers. It's certainly technologically possible for them to end up recording every channel in the U.S. for playback on demand, and I suspect that's where many of the tough licensing issues come up. How much control is Apple willing to cede to the networks (and vice versa) over "viewing windows" and what have you?
Perhaps it will be something like Bang & Olufsen V1 TV (<a href="http://www.beoplay.com/Products/BeoplayV1" rel="nofollow">http://www.beoplay.com/Products/BeoplayV1</a>) which have a small compartment where a ATV can be hidden.
That would make more sense to me, let someone else make the TV and then bundle an ATV. Perhaps with a shared remote.
If they really want to change the game, they need to find a way to offer a la carte network subscriptions and full on-demand (similar to HBOGo) for every channel. I would pay a premium for a service where I could buy HBO, ESPN and Comedy Central and have access to those network's entire archives as well as the latest programming.<p>Its obvious that is the future (HBO already does it and its amazing) so anything less would be a step in the wrong direction for them.
What are the benefits of making an actual Apple television over the current "Apple TV"?<p>Really the only thing I can think of is some kind of integrated iSight camera for "Facetime on your couch". And maybe some noise cancelling microphones for Siri. It could be neat but I probably wouldn't buy one.<p>All the other stuff like DVRs and whatever can just be done with an upgraded AppleTV puck.
Could Apple do a deal with Dish Network or DirecTV and use internet streaming in place of satellite dishes? That would let them avoid negotiating deals with regional cable carriers.
Have you seen the new iMac?<p>Now, imagine apple making that thin and beautiful of a screen at 32", 42", and 50". They could price them at $499, $749, and $999. People would buy that.<p>There are 2 things they could do to really pull people in - make TV easy and put iOS apps on your television.<p>Make TV easy - have a beautiful UI that makes it easy. Less clutter, easier to read channel guide. Simple setup. Etc. Maybe channel search via Siri. "Siri, I want to watch Fringe." And Siri finds you that episode via maybe a built in DVR, Apple's catalog, Hulu plus, or the cable company's on demand stuff.<p>iOS apps on your TV. Seriously, $1 games on your TV. Even $6 premium games like Infinity Blade. Compare that to $60 games like Halo 4 or even "cheap" Xbox 360 games at $15 or so. People would go bananas for that. The trickiest part for apps is the control mechanism, but for games, most of them could be made to use a game controller similar to what OUYA is doing.<p>If Apple can get those two things right, they will be able to charge a real premium for a TV. The reason TV's have low margins right now is that they have no value adds or differentiation. It's hard to justify spending $1,000 on a "smart" tv when a $400 tv has the same picture quality for the most part and every $50+ add on box and blu ray player has "smart tv" apps like netflix, hulu, amazon video, picasa, etc...