Genes are interesting. My natural skepticism gene came from my father. That’s where my tightwad gene came from. Passion came from the other side of the family. Together, I’m probably passionately skeptical.
That’s my stance on the so-called Apple television. Skeptical. Passionately so.
That healthy dose of skepticism comes from trying the answer the question, “What could Apple do to a television that isn’t already being done?”
Not much.
Higher screen resolution? Big whoop. It’s not like TVs today have sucky screens. Apps? Been there, done that. They’re not great apps, but akin to having a web browser on your TV screen.
The hype about Apple blessing the world with the television of tomorrow has lead to uncontrolled frenzy among tech pundits and Apple watchers. A new research study says Apple is poised to disrupt the TV industry.
How so?
25% to 30% of consumers in the U.S. and U.K find an Apple television appealing and would buy it. Among those consumers who already have an Apple product, the pent up demand is even higher, averaging about 40%.
What?
40-percent of people (U.S. and U.K.) who own and Apple product already want to buy an Apple television?
That’s nuts. Apple is completely mum on the subject. Nobody else knows any details about an Apple television. What’s the screen size? What’s the price tag? How or why would it be better than the classy TVs from Sony, Samsung, or LG?
TVs are big, dumb windows. That’s it. After that, there are variances in screen size, speakers, thickness, connectivity, and now a few anemic apps built-in to some of the better screens, but it’s still a big, dumb window.
The value of a TV isn’t the TV. It’s what you see on the screen. How can Apple improve on a high quality, low price television from Samsung? Retina display?Siri? iSight camera? Apps?
Hmmm, apps.
Apple rolls best by integrating and reshaping new, cool, and improved technology into an ecosystem teeming with gee whiz interactivity. But doesn’t the company’s $99 Apple TV already do that?
Color me skeptical, but I’m hard pressed to see what Apple could bring to the television party that’s not already there. What we’re seeing from pundits now is their love of hype before the storm of disappointment.
It is a certainty that a well designed TV set sporting an Apple logo is not enough to disrupt the television industry. And my take on your article is that this is the point you are making. Fair enough? Yet the television industry is ripe for disruption, as I see it. Those “big dumb windows” don’t have much to look at. The state of TV programming is deplorable. The mediocre content is laced with so much advertising that it’s hardly worth turning the thing on. I don’t even own a TV. So where Apple could do something surprising is with content. Television could be really great. Imagine if you could access a wealth of amazing content on demand, by talking to the TV set. I’m not saying Apple has figured this out, or that it would be easy to arrange, but my guess is that Apple would not enter the TV market without revolutionary content.
Apple has been good at ‘skating to where the puck will be’ so I expect something unique.
But you’re right. TVs are big dumb windows. It’s what goes in the window that counts. Apple won’t be able to repeat what they did with music.