Analyst: Apple should sell the 'world's first non-TV TV'
Summary: The problem with TV isn't the screen we watch it on, it's what's on the screen.
Speculation that Apple is preparing to enter the TV business is at fever pitch, but according to one analyst, the best way for the Cupertino giant to break into this market is by thinking outside the box and begin manufacturing the "world's first non-TV TV".
According to James McQuivey, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester, the "TV business is a tough nut to crack" because the "content is still controlled by monopolists unlikely to give Apple the keys to their content archives," and that Apple introducing a new screen for people to watch content on is unlikely to change anything.
Apple, he claims, has to do "something very different". And in his opinion, that "something very different" is the iHub.
"Apple should sell the world's first non-TV TV," writes McQuivey. "Instead of selling a replacement for the TV you just bought, Apple should convince millions of Apple fans that they need a new screen in their lives. Call it the iHub, a 32-inch screen with touch, gesture, voice, and iPad control that can be hung on the wall wherever the family congregates for planning, talking, or eating - in more and more US homes, that room is the dining room or eat-in kitchen."
McQuivey believes that the key to success is not content, but apps.
"By pushing developers to create apps that serve as the hub of family life - complete with shared calendars, photo and video viewers, and FaceTime for chatting with grandma - this non-TV TV could take off, ultimately positioning Apple to replace your 60-inch set once it's ready to retire."
The problem with McQuivey's giant, wall-mounted, multi-user iPad is that it doesn't really bring anything new to the equation. Putting aside the ergonomic issues related to using a 32-inch wall-mounted touch screen device, what does this device do that can't already be done with an iPad, a Mac, or, for that matter, a whole host of other devices?
Another problem I see with this idea is that while it side-steps the competition in the TV market by being a "non-TV TV," the device will undoubtedly have to compete for wall/floor/shelf space with a TV. People have limited space to put anything as big as what McQuivey is proposing, and there's a good chance that the space that he's thinking that people are going to fill with an iHub is already filled with -- you guessed it -- a TV.
McQuivey mentions how Xbox 360 owners generating more online video views on TVs than viewers of any other device, but then fails to make the connection between the Xbox 360, which is a box that connects to almost every TV in existence, and the Apple TV, another box that connects to almost every TV in existence.
If Microsoft can change people's viewing habits with a device that doesn't have a screen, why does Apple need to make a device with a screen to achieve the same outcome?
As much as I would like to see Apple do something to revolutionize TV, I'm not convinced that any revolution will have anything to do with a screen whatsoever. The problem with TV isn't the screen we watch it on, it's what's displayed on that screen.
Related:
- Why Apple, RIM, Nokia and Motorola are arguing over what your next SIM card will look like
- The case against the ‘iPad mini’: Fragmentation and cannibalization
- Reuters: iPhone 5 to have 4-inch screen
- WSJ: iPhone 5 getting 4-inch+ screen
- Who cares that the iPad 3 is thicker and heavier than the iPad 2?
- iPhone touch panel shipments to fall 15-20 percent in Q2 2012
- Best earphones for your iPhone and iPad
- Jailbroken iPads can now multitask apps
- Top accessories for your iPhone and iPad
- 100 reasons to jailbreak an iPhone
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Sheesh. Apps are content.
Were you referring to the iFlop?
No it doesn't
My advice to others is, if you don't like it ... don't buy it. Don't "diss" it because you don't understand it.
Where did it "flop" exactly?
AppleTV is a success.
Most companies would pray for that kind of flop.
@Tigertank. Apple's Vista moment = the flop when you're not having a flop
Apple TV
If it had apps
Just what I need
Seriously, what you are calling for is a big iPad that hangs on the wall. In other words, a tablet that is not a tablet. Do we really need a tablet that is not portable? When I sit down with the family for a meal, we eat and talk and catch up. We leave the toys for a bit and communicate the old fashioned way. No apps required.
No thanks
Just calling it 32" iPad.
tv
That was just dumb....
http://www.tech-thoughts.net/
Care to explain...
As others have said
Also, Apple managed to enter the smartphone market because they were the first to sell a high-end device. And there were no smartphone with the same general capabilities.
In the TV set market, there are already quite a few high-end brands, and I mean *really* high-end (think Bang & Olufsen) and, when looking only at the "consumer" market there's already plenty of choice, for pretty much all price ranges, from the cheap TV to the high-endish more expensive.
And, what the analyst forgot (or doesn't know): people actually watch more TV today, of the broadcast variety, that they did 5 years ago. This isn't very surprising: yes Apple sells 1 million AppleTVs and Microsoft sells some 2 million XBoxs per quarter but some 55 million LCD TVs are sold in the same quarter.
It's a completely different market from the cell phones, and unless Apple offers something really revolutionary, an Apple TV is unlikely to have any real sucess.
It shouldn't include a screen
I still think the solution is some type of hub and spoke model. A single "master" device that delivers content to the various screens in the home. Then you can sell a small type device that can be easily concealed (or is subtle - think Wii bar) that will handle receiving content (from the master) and be the source for each TV, as well as potentially handle any interface functions (voice, gestures, etc.). Sell the master/hub for $200-400 (depending on config - storage and number of slaves supported being the differentiator) and sell the "slave" devices for $50-75 per screen.
Let Samsung, Sharp, Sony, LG, Vizio, etc. fight it out for the screens. Since flatscreens have gone mainstream, you've seen the players in this market struggling to figure out ways to get people to refresh. First it was the MHz, then it was the 1020dpi, then came along 3D with stupid glasses and now you're starting to see "smart TVs" with gestures. The reality is, as long as what they have still functions properly, people aren't going to be in any big rush to refresh. Why would Apple want to be in that space?
I know for my primary TV (living room), I've had the 50" plasma for probably about 5 years now and unless it breaks, I'll probably have it for 2-3 more before I seriously think about replacing it, and even then, it's probably going to the game room if it still works. Why would you want to play in a space where the refresh rate could be 7-10 years or even longer when you can offer a product that uses what people have today, making everyone potential customers on day 1?
Hmm.....
Those that produce the content will have two choices, either switch to the new system or go out of business.
Success will be in the strategic approach they take
What made it succeed? It was easy to use. That was a game changer back then. They later recognized the power of an open app store and leveraged it.
If Apple ever enters the TV market, I think it will do so very strategically. For all the reasons my fellow commenters point out, building a TV set with an Apple logo on it isn't enough. I think they will in fact build a very differnen kind of TV, though. First, of course you can watch television on it, but more importantly, I'm going to guess you'll be able to watch the internet on it. So you don't have to go over to your PC to watch website content.
The strategic game changer is to use the internet as the substitute to a cable network. If Apple - or frankly, anyone, could do that successfully, they wouldn't be competing with television manufacturers, they would be competing with cable providers and they'll have hundreds of thousands of web companies that will be more than happy to become content providers. And Apple will be more than happy to help them monetize it via apps on that television via the TV app store.
And by the way, if they could simplify the maddening mix of set top boxes and input selections required, they'd be doing the world a big favor. Mix it in with what we already have in the Apple TV set top box, and you've got an actual strategy that leaves a Sony, LG, Samsung or Time-Warner or Comcast struggling to catch up.
No Thanks
Give me a nice panasonic that is twice the size and a quarter of the cost and I will be happy.
Where is your info from?