Apple TV Will Cost Twice as Much as Comparable TV Sets [Rumor]


Apple TV's new app could give us the interface we've dreamed of.
Photo: Jim Merithew/Cult of Mac

The latest iTV rumor is hitting the web today as Gene Munster told the crowd at IGNITION: Future of Media that the new Apple Television Set has been in the works for sometime now but should be released next year.

Munster is so certain that the new device is coming that he told everyone to wait before buying a new TV because Apple’s is going to be awesome.

Unlike the current Apple TV, Munster believes the new device will be a full fledged TV set that has Apple’s software integrated into the experience. It was also claimed that the new TV set will come in a number of different sizes. Most Apple products come in only a few different sizes to accommodate the difference between consumers and professionals, so it will be interesting to see how many different sizes Apple produces.

The startling claim made by Gene Munster is that the new TVs will likely be priced twice as much as comparable tv sets.  For example, a 40inch TV may currently sell for an average of $700 but a 40inch Apple TV will cost as much as $1400. It’s hard to judge whether this claim will hold true, but Apple has a history of being able to charge a premium for their products by providing higher value than competing products by focusing on functionality, design and ease of use. The Apple TV will likely follow this same type of model.

Rather than controlling the television with multiple remotes, the entire experience will be controlled via an iOS app on an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch. Siri integration is also a strong possibility that many believe will revolutionize the TV experience.

Munster doesn’t believe the Apple TV will completely replace the need for a cable subscription and cable box, but with the full integration of apps like Netflix, Crackle, Hulu, and the iTunes video library, we think that Apple’s TV will definitely threaten cable’s business model.

The Apple TV will be launched in time for the holidays next year if Munster is to be believed.

[Business Insider via 9to5Mac]

  • FriarNurgle

    Which is why I hope they stick with the little hockey puck ATV. 

  • Clivus Multrum

    Accommodate.  Not “accomidate”.

  • Gabriel Clemons

    I find it hard to believe that if Apple made a TV that it would be as cheap as $1400. The smallest display (27″) they offer is $1000. If apple made a 40″ TV there is no way it would be cheaper than $2,000. If the TV rumor comes true, I will wait until the second generation.

  • Chris Jones

    Televisions have much lower pixel densities and are significantly cheaper per inch to manufacture that computer monitors.

  • Aj Tk427

    agreed, I will not pay a premium price for a TV set in which the premium experience can come from a 100 dollar box connected to it.  For the price that Apple is going to charge, based on this report, would be insane.  People are buying bigger TVs, I can grab a very good TV from Samsung, Sharp, Pioneer @ 60″ for cheaper than I can get a say a 46″ Apple TV?  No Thanks, I’ll plug in my Apple TV box for that. I still don’t get these Full ATV rumors.
    I’m excited to see what they do sure, but I hope Apple doesn’t go nuts and price themselves out of this market.  At those kind of prices, the display will have to be fantastic, like compare a 720 LCD from 2 years ago to todays LED TVs

  • bmdonovan

    If the pixel density scaled up along with screen size, I would agree. However, that 27″ display has around 108 pixels per inch, while the 40″ TV is around 55 pixels per inch.

  • Gordon_Keenan

    Check out Bang & Olufsen TV prices…. that is the market Apple will just hover under…..
    You think nobody would buy these? Wrong…. I’ve been involved in major installs of their gear and you have no idea the people who are willing to pay money for this market….

  • Guest

    ?? You know you dont have to buy t right? For people who do good for them.

  • Cincotta_e

    I agree with myself when I say that these rumors are ridiculous. I will seriously tattoo “apple knows best” on my face if this happens, which I know it won’t. Why would Apple come out with an Apple T V in the first place, if they’re planning to release a television set?

  • djrobsd

    Sorry Apple but consumers aren’t stupid… Instead of focusing on making a silly TV set, you should focus on your existing Apple TV box and how to make it deliver all that functionality without requiring consumers to waste money on a new TV.  Besides, why would I invest money on HARD CODING technology into my TV that may be obsolete in 1-2 years?  Is Apple trying to get people to buy a new TV every 18 months like they do their iPhones and iPads?  FAIL!!!!!

  • djrobsd

    I sure do… It’s the 1%.  The other 90% buy Westinghouse, Vizio, and other off brands.  The remaining 9% buy Samsung, Sony, and LG.

  • BMWTwisty

    Look at all of the “analysts,” bloggers, and anyone else who thinks they know what is best for Apple to do, and their persistent pissing and moaning about Apple’s exorbitant pricing of computers.  I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from these types if Apple introduces a $1400 “TV”. 

    The concept of TV/computer – especially a potentially iOS-based unit –  is intriguing, but extrapolate the manufacturing and financial aspect of this type of product.  What is the cost and profit margin Apple would be comfortable with?  How many would Apple have to sell to break even?  Why don’t we have more than 2 models of the iPad (WIFi and 3G) and 1 model of iPhone at this point?  

    How can you think Apple would invest their resources into designing and manufacturing multiple models of this alleged TV? Put me in the disbeliever list but I’ll also be in line for a tattoo on my forehead if this rumor comes to pass.

  • Len Williams

    You’re right, consumers aren’t stupid, but you presume too much. Basic TV functionality can be hardwired fairly simply these days. Firmware and user interface can be downloaded and updated easily over the Internet, so it isn’t “hard coded” into a product. Apple has a consistent record of revolutionizing the computer, tablet, music and telephone industries with products that people LOVE and that sell by the millions upon millions. I have an original first generation iPhone that I bought a year after they first came out. It still works very well and does everything it did when I first bought it. Yes, there are newer iPhones with faster processors and improved functionality, but that doesn’t make my old iPhone obsolete. I’ll probably buy the new iPhone 4S or may wait for the iPhone 5 next year. The point is, just because newer models come out, these don’t necessarily make older models obsolete and FORCE you to upgrade. 

    No one holds a gun to your head and MAKES you buy a new iPhone or iPad each time a new model comes out. I drive a 2000 Honda Accord that I bought new and it still runs great. By your logic, I’d need to buy a new car every year because the old one was “obsolete”.

    Whether Apple actually manufactures a TV or comes out with an improved AppleTV box that connects to your existing TV remains to be seen. It’s all speculation at this point. If they DO come out with a TV, you can expect that it will be a revolutionary product that will dramatically change the way TVs work, how they connect to the Internet, cable providers and receive over-the-air TV channels. It will make TV’s simple, the same way the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad have changed the face of their respective categories.

    Sorry, but Apple (and CEO Tim) isn’t stupid. They’ll only release products that are major upgrades from what exists now–and their amazing track record speaks for itself. Chill out and wait for the official announcement and release, and then either buy or don’t buy the product. It’s far too early to declare “FAIL.”

  • realchrisjones

    You don’t have to be an Apple insider to know Apple TV’s will cost significantly more than a typical TV. Apple already gets away with selling a 27″ LED monitor for $1000. You can get a comparable 27″ glossy LED from HP for around $400. 

  • Charel

    It is easy to forget that most analysts predicted that the iPad would be much too expensive at at least $ 1000 to be a hit.
    Now they are beginning to repeat themselves by predicting that Apple’s TVs will be twice the price of average sets.

    Why do people take these speculations seriously? 

  • saudio

    I’d GLADLY pay $1400 for a 40″.  I have an 8-year old Sony 32″ 16:9 HD that is one of the last CRT sets anyone made.  The picture is INCREDIBLE and, since it’s an XBR, is my gold standard for judging anything else.  When I bought it the cost was $5000.  

  • shockme

    Gene has flogged this rumor to death. It will NOT happen this way. The first thing to happen will be to bump the output of the AppleTV box to 1080p at 240mHz and then the introduction of a game controller and an SDK for developers while maintaining the $100 price point to speed adoption.

    It will go head to head with Microsoft’s well-established XBox 360 as that gaming console morphs into a more capable Cable TV box hampered only by its lack of blue-ray. 

    I would say the success of the Apple TV will depend solely on the novelty and quality of the controller used to navigate an upgraded 10-foot user interface.

  • FriarNurgle

    Heck, if it’s as pricey as they say. You might as well get a nice large TV and a mac mini. 

  • Bart?omiej ?api?ski

    And after that, Apple can sue every TV maker in the world for making products similar to theirs (a rectangular box with a smaller rectangular screen inside). Other companies will have their TVs removed from market. And in this way, Apple will win!

  • minimalist1969

    Not that Munster has proved himself worth listening to before (analysts almost always get it wrong with Apple).  But if its got extra value and extra features and better quality then its not “comparable” with a 700 dollar bargain basement Vizio or Insignia.  Macbook Airs don’t charge a premium over comparable ultra-books and the iPhone doesn’t charge a premium over comparable flagship Android devices.  Why on earth would Munster think Apple wouldn’t do the same for a TV?  Has he been paying attention for the last 4 or so years?  Apple doesn’t really change more than their competitors.  They just don’t compete in the low end market.  Big difference.

  • CharliK

    “but with the full integration of apps like Netflix, Crackle, Hulu, and the iTunes video library, we think that Apple’s TV will definitely threaten cable’s business model.”

    which is about content deals, not hardware. So improve the content deals and put them on the little black box

  • CharliK

    That comment just shows how little you think sometimes. Or how lame your sense of humor is. 

    Because Apple would be licensing tech from the TV makers as they have the prior art. Which is in fact a reason why folks like Munster may find that they are dead wrong and Apple is neither making a TV nor ever plans to. After all, Steve’s comment about “I cracked it” was about the UI. That’s software. That’s the little black box. 

  • CharliK

    How about paying $200 for a better box that can work with your incredible existing tv. 

  • CharliK

    by game controller you mean customers existing iOS devices or the ones they are about to buy. And by SDK you mean the one that already exists with perhaps a handful of minor tweaks. 

    You also forgot that bumping the output to 1080p is no good unless the content deals are also bumped. and it would likely be more like 120mHz since more folks have a tv at that level than higher. 

    but I agree that it will be a better box not a full tv

  • CharliK

    I have a friend that likes to call them ANALysts. cause they are generally talking out of their asses

  • CharliK

    Consumers aren’t stupid but perhaps you are since you seem to take this guy’s guess as fact. 

    why don’t you wait until Tim, Scott etc announce this Apple TV unit before you talk smack about it and them

  • CharliK

    Apple is about making money and getting more products into more hands. this is why they stopped the old “what do the professionals” want touchstone for designing everything. 

    So given this. Do you think they are really going to design something that will appeal to at best 5% of the market. Or go for the 95% (who would rather have a box they hook up to their choice of tvs)

  • CharliK

    they also generally don’t have USB ports, etc

  • saudio

    Unfortunately, with an 8-year old set, the best input I have is component… no HDMI, so I can’t even use Apple TV. Regardless, I’ll eventually have to replace it with something.

  • Charel

    I am aware of the term, but I wanted to keep it civil. 
    Thanks for pointing it out.

  • Bart?omiej ?api?ski

     Thank you kind sir for evaluating my sense of humor. Coming from a stiff person like you, I take it as a compliment. Also, your comment shows complete lack of personal courtesy which I do find disturbing.

    If Steve was about software, then why patenting a rectangular screen inside a rectangular box, while most of display devices (TVs, monitors, even old Russian handheld games) are built that way? Nevertheless, your clever insight has clearly changed the ways I think and I do admit defeat, good sir! Verily.

  • jschaff

    The only way Apple will justify twice the price is if they give us one product that will replace several others. They are not about gouging the customer, just maximizing their revenue by providing VALUE, EXPERIENCE. The iPhone/iPad replaces many other devices. Remotes, game machines, laptops, video watching devices, magazine and book readers, scientific monitor hardware, and others that I can’t recall. THAT’S where the value is. The TV won’t come out till it replaces the TV and just about everything that attaches to a TV. Game machine, DVR, blu-ray player, maybe even a built in MacBook.

    And they are not at all about living top 1%.

  • Bob Forsberg

    He has no idea what it will look like, when it will be made, what’s inside the box but knows it will be twice as much?